Demands on viewpoint and arguments – or cultural and human wretchedness.

The remarkable accept of random viewpoints.

Apparently, it is a widespread view that just having a standpoint has a value in itself. Some politicians and other people even think that without any further ado their political attitude can make up a sufficient counterargument in a discussion, maybe even an argument that can overthrow scientific arguments.

Some persons put forward statements such as “I respect her for insisting on her viewpoints”. However, there is only something worthy of respect if the speaker can advance sufficient arguments, as the next easy thing in the world is just having a viewpoint. For it demands no special reflection to choose an arbitrary point of view one just happens to like. Many people have irrational viewpoints. There is nothing of value in this. Some people are sincerely praised for their courage to stand up for their position. However, the easiest thing is to maintain a position. For this demands nothing at all, only the termination of self-criticism.[1]

What is demanded is the ability to argue for ones viewpoints. Having arguments is the preposition for possessing a standpoint. The less one reflects the easier it is to have a position.

It must be observed that substantiating one’s viewpoints with something else one just has chosen to think cannot make up any argumentation unless this is already well founded. Having a serious viewpoint naturally demands an illuminated and valuable argumentation.

Thus, the case is the opposite of how many people understand it: The more one think about it, the more difficult it is to have a standpoint. To summarize:

The next easiest thing in the world is to have a standpoint, for that just consists in choosing a standpoint that just suits oneself and to put a few words on it.

The very easiest thing in the world is to “stand firm on one’s viewpoint” for that demands nothing at all.

Statements such as “I have my opinion, and you have yours” and “My views can be just as good as yours”, which really is heard now and then, do not lead the society forwards. On the contrary, it leads to a situation where the parts stand in each corner and cannot do anything else than putting forward such statements. Only the sword remains.[2]

One of the silliest thing some may say in a discussion at all, but which nevertheless is frequently heard, is “You must put up with the fact that some people thinks something different than you do”.

For this criticism presupposes the just refuted idea that the mere having an opinion about something is positive and respectable. I addition, it is a defeat and an insult of the person that contrary to the speaker does the only right thing that must be done in a debate, namely simply to argue.

Demands to argumentation.

Any valuable argumentation has as its most fundamental demand that one can explain the meaning of the used expressions. This is especially a problem to religious persons, for when they assert “I believe in God” they put forward a sentence that contains two expressions that have no semantic meanings.

It is naturally not a problem that the religious us expressions such as “to believe” in the sense to suppose or to trust or that they use the term “god” as a term for a character in a fiction. However, it is typically not in this way that the religious persons use these expressions.

Thus, if some religious person asks, “What is your relation to god?” one must ask him what the expression “god” denotes. However, they cannot explain this in any valid wat, e.g. per genus et differentiam.[3]

Such an explanation is made up by e.g. the definition “A chair is a piece of furniture to sit on”. Here “chair” is genus, the hypernym, or the wider term, which is further explained. This is done by the differentiam, which is here the difference from the concept “chair”, namely the supplementary description “to sit on”. The genus referred to naturally must have a telling content, for otherwise it is empty. Therefore, expressions such as something” or “being”, which just means something existing (i.e. that what has to be defined exists), cannot be used here.

Typically, the religious persons reuse these words without using them in these senses or in any specified sense at all, but only as expressions to which they attach some vague ideas. These empty sign sequences just borrow an appearance of semantic meaning from the original and factual words, such as “belief” and “salvation”.

If, quite counterfactually, the religious persons could present an explanation of this kind, they would hardly be content with the natural and easily understandable explanation that hereby would arise.

Ironically enough, the only semantically meaningful thing we can assert that the religious people believe in, and which concern religion, is that they believe that the religious sentence has semantic meaning.

Consequences of the acceptance of meaningless expressions.

If one accepts the use of semantically meaningless expressions in one’s own and congenial persons’ sentences, one accept the idea that everything can be asserted and put forward without good justifications and explanations, i.e. also appraisal of all sorts of misery too. For by this one’s critical sense is invalidated.

However, what is it actually that is put forward if it is semantically senseless? At best, only diffuse statements. Those who advance them do that based on some diffuse ideas that consist in distortion of clear ideas. What is worse is that those who accept them may think they can draw conclusions based on such pseudo statements, and here we can be dealing with everything. Thus those who advance such statements may also feel justified in asserting whatever and carry out atrocities.

Some would object that among these statements, there can also be recommendations to do this or that that is for the benefit for people or humanity. However, these sentences are arbitrary, and thus we do not know in advance which kind of statements we have to do with. Thus, it is unlikely that we are dealing with pure reason without intermixed non-sense. In any circumstances, they have to be justified.

Such a state is of course completely unacceptable, as it threat the peace locally and globally.

It has been concluded that is the basis of any religion that it is assumed to be acceptable to advance and accept semantically senseless sentences or sequences of signs. This means that when one accept the most innocent Christianity or any other religion, one accept not just the basis of this religion, but also the basis of all possible insanity religions: the acceptance of semantically meaningless sequence of signs, for this is common to them all. These religions proliferate themselves like Hydra’s heads and they can therefore not be fought down by war.

Only enlightenment and reason can get this disorder to wither away

The mandatory ethics of the religions.

It must be observed that religious ethical statements certainly can have semantic meaning; however, they are just borrowed feathers of the religions. For ethical statements must be justified on the basis of an understanding of the case itself. Referring to commands is pitiable and thoughtless. Moreover, like anything else, ethical commands cannot be concluded from semantically senseless sentences.

These ethical statements just work as a sort of promotion for the rest of the religion. It must likewise be observed that this accept creeps in anywhere:

If an organisation with a name that refers to Christian makeshift announces for its makeshift, this organisation promotes for religion by connecting its name with the idea of the good thing it does: makeshift. With the one hand, i.e. by its name, this organisation supports the common basis of the religions, which is also the basis of the religions that creates the misery it with the other hand collects money for mitigating.

In a similar way, a union with name The Crusaders of Christianity will connect itself with good acts qua the choice of its name. This means that if a person lets himself be photographed together with a happy crowd of handicapped in the Crusaders’ rooms, then this person also promotes the religion and its basis.

The cultural and human catastrophe.

The faulty idea that it is legitimate and sensible to put forward sentences that does not need to have semantic sense is an erroneous and unlucky assumption. It is a cultural and human catastrophe, mildly put. With this idea, a catastrophically great progress takes place from sense to the deepest lack of sense.

This idea of acting on the basis of statements that lack the most basic thing in being sense, namely semantic meaning, clears the way for all sorts of wretched statements and acts that can be  promoted by all conceivable felonious rulers.

This idea flouts argumentations and therefore one can get the thought that those who chose to be religious are not interested in the demand that their expressions must be words. For this choice, give them a false alibi for being able to assert and do whatever.

However, those who can think and argue clearly and realize the above conclusions ought to seek to hinder this wretchedness – by means of a wisdom and mediation, which then hopefully will spread like wildfire.

Litteratur:

[Hegel 88]         G.W.F. Hegel: Phänomenologie des Geistes
Felix Meiner Verlag GmbH (Hamburg 1988).

”Indem jener sich auf das Gefühl, sein inwendiges Orakel, beruft, ist er gegen den, der nicht übereinstimmt, fertig; er muß erklaren, daß er dem weiter nichts zu sagen habe, der nicht dasselbe in sich finde und fühle; - mit andern Worten, er tritt die Wurzel der Humanität mit Füßen. Denn die Natur dieser ist, auf die Übereinkunft mit andern zu dringen, und ihre Existenz nur in der zu Stande gebrachten Gemeinsamkeit der Bewußtsein. Das Widermenschliche, das Tierische besteht darin, im Gefühle stehen zu bleiben und nur durch dieses sich mitteilen zu können.”

---

[1] In a previous contribution, I have written that “nothing is more easy than just to have a standpoint”.

[2] According to G.W.F. Hegel it is anti-humanistic only to express ones feelings and not wanting to explain oneself to those who does not to oneself. Hegel expresses this in ”Vorrede” to Phänomenologie agree des Geistes in which he talk about what he calls “common sense” and puts forward that:

When a person just invoke his feeling, his inner oracle, he is through with the person who does not agree with him. Hr can the only state that he does not have further to say the person that does not feel or find the same thing in himself.  The person in question thus tramples the rood of humanity under foot. For it is the nature of what is human to reach an agreement wither other persons and this only exists in an obtained fellowship of understanding. The inhuman the animal attitude consist in remaining standing at the feeling and only express onseslf through this.  (G.W.F. Hegel: Phänomenologie des Geistes, Felix Meiner Verlag GmbH, Hamburg 1988, p. 51, my abbreviated version.)

This can be justified by the fact that without communication we become isolated beings. Lacking interest in explaining oneself is also lacking interest in clarifying ones own viewpoints, in thinking them through one time more. History, also has documented that such an attitude is dangerous to peace in the world, namely if one wants to spread ones viewpoints without arguing.

[3] This is thoroughly discussed in the section “Semantic critique of religious sequences of signs” in Treatise No 5, at

http://philosophical-debate.blogspot.dk/2013/01/trearise-no-5.html.

Atheists support theism.

(This is a preliminary text.)

Religious persons must be able to attribute meaning to their expressions, i.e. describe what they are talking about, if they want to be regarded as reasonable. It is here an important demand, that to describe e.g. the expression “god”, they must do that by means of a hyponym, i.e. genus et differentiam.

However, the religious people can describe neither the genus nor the hyponym. Moreover, it must be mentioned that expressions as “something” or “being” are not usable hyponyms, as they tell us nothing.

It must also be pointed out that it is not sufficient to use terms for experiences as a hyponym. For when you have experiences, what exists are just your experiences. So here, the genus is “experience” - and nothing else.

This is described in the subsection “Religious explanations” in Treatise No 5

Someone may assert to have evidence of the truth of the sentence “God exists” and express this evidence with the sentence “I have felt God’s nearness”. In that case, however, the only thing that can be said to be present or have been present is a feeling of a certain sort, viz. the very feeling referred to however it might have been, but not an existence of anything else. For that reason, the sentence cannot be an apt description of the feeling in question. The experience referred to cannot give meaning to a new concept of a god either, as the discussed sentence presupposes that the meaning of this putative concept has been clarified, i.e. to which kind of entity the sign sequence “god” possibly might refer. The semantic meaning of a sentence simply must be clarified in order to ex-press anything.

--

The atheists’ sentence “There is no god”, presupposes that in principle this sentence could be true, but that it just hap-pens not to be the case. This gives religion an appearance of reasonableness.

In other words, the atheists do not understand the religious peoples' fault, but commit it themselves.

The unavoidable basis of an ethics and politics – a very short summary.

Corrected 11-09-2016

(This text is preliminary.) 

The section “ethics and politics” in the Treatise no 6 argues for an unavoidable basis of an ethics and politics. However, the argument may appear indirect, to have made a detour. This circumstance has been sought clarified in the summary “An ethical basis” at ovemk2.bogspot.dk, which has also been published in a slightly revised version in Treatise No 7. This contribution moreover involves the personal ethical problems of the individual.

As it is usable to be able to state the argument both shortly and satisfactorily, such a rendition follows here. To this has been added yet a consequence.

A logically necessary basis of an ethics and politics.

Anyone that wants to discuss the question at all whether there is a basis, i.e. an unavoidable basis of an ethics, must admit that there is such a basis and even one that can be closely specified. The reason to this is as follows:

Such a discussion and the search of an answer to this question make it necessary to concentrate on the question and to aim at clarifying all the circumstances that can shed light it.

This demands favourable life conditions for those who will endeavour to make the necessary investigations and considerations.

A justified denial of this demands the same endeavours and thus leads to the same result. In other words, the result cannot be denied. With this, we have succeeded in finding the basis of an ethics and a politics:

 the consideration and demand for good life conditions for all people.

This basis has concrete implications for how the society ought to be in order to fulfil this demand, and how we ought to act.

Of course, people can assert that they will no care with the question about the basis of ethics, but self-evidently they cannot argue that this is acceptable.

Consequences.

It follows from this basis, that actions that reduce other persons’ living conditions are objectionable. With that, it is objectionable if the laws of a country force the citizens in certain social groups to use all their energy on managing a hand-to-mouth existence, so that they get no means to clarification and experience, i.e. means to live the life and to know it.

In Treatise No 6 some further examples of ethical and political consequences have been stated.

In addition, it is so that the very work with this basis implies or demands that the single individual works with a clarification of many different subjects.

Referencer.

Etik og politik, Afhandling Nr. 6: http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/anti-introductionism/27259919

Etik og politik, på blog: http://www.ovemk.blogspot.dk/,

Etik og politik, Afhandling Nr. 7: http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/anti-introductionism/27259919

Links to some of my English home pages.

  
Argumentation criticism. Criticism of illogical and unethical argumentation.
Commentaries are welcome.
http://ovemk2.blogspot.dk/
- - -

Treatises. My philosophical Treatises No 1-8 concerning anti-introductionism.
https://wordpress.com/posts/antiintroductionism.wordpress.com
- - -

Treatises Here they are also available in a Word version.
https://sites.google.com/site/antiintroductionism/
. My philosophical Treatises No 1-8 concerning anti-introductionism.

“Human rights”.

The following question has been posed at https://www.facebook.com/groups/filosoph/?fref=ts

”Is basic shelter and healthcare a human right???”

What are human rights? Human rights are in principle a human decision.

However, there is a basis of ethics and politics – contrary to what Alfred Ayer says.

In fact, it can be proved that an unavoidable basic of ethics and politics exists, i.e. a basis that you must agree in if you want to discuss this question and inquire into the subject at all.

The idea of this unavoidable basic of ethics and politics is therefore superior to this idea of human rights.

However, we can of course call the specific results of this basis “human rights”.

This is described further in this article and its references.

http://www.ovemk2.blogspot.dk/2014/07/the-unavoidable-basis-of-ethics-and.html

Religion and war.

(This is a preliminary text, 21 November 2014.)

This text is an elaborated and extended version of http://www.ovemk2.blogspot.dk/2014/11/atheists-support-theism.html.

Religious persons must be able to attribute meaning to their expressions, i.e. describe what they are talking about, if they want to be regarded as reasonable. However, religious persons use inter alia their religious expression “god” as if it has a clear reference to a real object, X, which we all have knowledge of. Thus, they apply the expression “god” in the same naturel way as designers use the word “chair”. In fact, it is somewhat offending to the reader or listener.

It is generally a basal demand, that a description of all expressions must be done by means of a hyponym, or genus et differentiam. This includes naturally the expression “god”.

Designers and other people have no problem with describing the word “chair” in the demanded way, viz. thus: “a chair is a piece of furniture to sit on”.

However, the religious people can describe neither the genus nor the hyponym when they are to describe the expression “god”. It must here be mentioned that expressions such as “something” or “being” are not usable hyponyms, as they tell us nothing.

It must also be pointed out that it is not sufficient to use terms for experiences or as a hyponym r genus. For when you have experiences, all what exists are just your experiences. So here, the genus is identical to “experience” - and nothing else. This is described more closely in the subsection “Religious explanations” in Treatise No 5 in these words:

‘Someone may assert to have evidence of the truth of the sentence “God exists” and express this evidence with the sentence “I have felt God’s nearness”. In that case, however, the only thing that can be said to be present or have been present is a feeling of a certain sort, viz. the very feeling referred to however it might have been, but not an existence of anything else. For that reason, the sentence cannot be an apt description of the feeling in question. The experience referred to cannot give meaning to a new concept of a god either, as the discussed sentence presupposes that the meaning of this putative concept has been clarified, i.e. to which kind of entity the sign sequence “god” possibly might refer. The semantic meaning of a sentence simply must be clarified in order to ex-press anything.’

It must be observes that the atheists’ sentence “There is no god”, presupposes that in principle this sentence could be true, but that it just happens not to be the case. This faulty assumption gives religion an appearance of reasonableness.

In other words, the atheists do not understand the religious peoples' fault, but commit it themselves.

Consequences.

The so-called cultural Christians provide a breeding ground to the original Christianity (the evangelical Lutheran National Church). Both parts provide a breeding ground to related religions, i.e. the Pentecostalism, etc.

Because of the common core of the religions, which consists in accept of semantic senseless expressions, there is no clear borderline between the different religious layers and groups, only gradually different characteristics. It follows from the above remarks that neither the persons that call themselves “atheists”, has understood this. Thus, all religious persons make up a coherent community together with those that call themselves “atheists” or “agnostics”.

According to the cultural Christians, Christianity – and religion overall – is something sensible; and as soon as a person has accepted this, he can go a step further to a worse religion and thus legitimate yet more misery in the shape of condemnation that results in outrageous acts: harassment of others, humiliation, violence and homicide

Possibly the religious aggressions may be a consequence of their succumbing to some ideas of something they cannot explain, not only because these is not true, but also because they have a diffuse relation to semantic senseless expressions.

Therefore, we ought to set our own house in order by means of increased enlightenment, before we send soldiers into fight with religious extremists, or at least in parallel with this. This can, by our help, spread like wildfire.

People need a greater insight into which statements are sensible and which are linguistically senseless, such as it is shortly expounded above. We must spread an understanding of the necessity of being able to justify ones viewpoints. A presentation of a justification pressuposs that one can explain the used expressions. Otherwise, we have just persons on the one side that approve of something and others on the other side that condemns the same thing. Left is only the sword.

Religion builds upon a basis of these lacking considerations. However, how shall we spread an understanding of this even in at otherwise enlightened country? For even the least consideration would lead to the understanding that the religious expression are linguistically senseless. The problem is that many people cannot realize these evident truths by themselves, or that they do not want to do that because it may disturb their imaginations.

Thus, it is not primarily so that lacking reflection and knowledge is caused by religion, but that these two are the source of religion. However, when religion finally has gained a free rein, it legitimate an even greater lack of reflection.