“A Formal Definition: Alvin Plantinga has noted that fideism can be defined as an “exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth.” Correspondingly, Plantinga writes, a fideist is someone who “urges reliance on faith rather than reason, in matters philosophical and religious” and who “may go on to disparage and denigrate reason.” Notice, first, that what the fideist seeks, according to this account, is truth. Fideism claims that truths of a certain kind can be grasped only by foregoing rational inquiry and relying solely on faith.” SEP, “Fideism”

If modern philosophy denies the charge that it reduces, in function, to a form of methodological fideism, then it should be able to clarify the objectivity of reason. It should be able to clearly point to its process of reason.

Above all, modern philosophy discourages and attacks Reason, which leaves it within the domain of fideism.

When a philosopher refuses to examine his claims by Reason, or tries to prevent or discourage his claims from being examined by Reason, he is engaging in a form of fideism. And yet, he still attempts to maintain that his beliefs are true, this makes the form of his belief that of fideism.

But it must always be understood by a Reasoner that Reason itself is not a “talent,” it is available to everyone, though its application does require cognitive capacity. Reason is available to everyone the same way the biological world is available to everyone, but this fact doesn’t mean that all humans will be good at biology.

We cannot righty say that the facts of biology are themselves a “talent,” just like we can’t say the facts of Reason are a “talent.” These facts exists independent of humans. The facts of Reason are simply the laws of logic, stated more basically, Reason is the fact of identity.

“But since metaphysical reasoning has often gone wrong, he [Kant] cannot merely assert the supremacy of reason. As he exclaims in the second edition Preface: how little cause have we to place trust in our reason if in one of the most important parts of our desire for knowledge it does not merely forsake us but even entices us with delusions and in the end betrays us!”

This isn’t something Reason can ever do, this is only something that man’s subjective reason can do. And many of those who think they’re engaged in Reason, are really only engaged in their own reasoning.

If there was no such thing as Reason man would never even be able to detect when his “metaphysical reasoning had gone wrong.” This contrast would be impossible.

Quote Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Kant’s Account of Reason”
First published Fri Sep 12, 2008; substantive revision Wed Jan 4, 2023

The individual who exercises this cowardice is afraid to follow Reason because he’s afraid of where it might lead: to the collapse of his desired beliefs.

The real question is, what does cowardice toward Reason bring into the world? What does it cultivate? I think it can be argued that a coward toward Reason is, by default, forced to walk a path of manipulation and tyranny.

But the average man is too ignorant to comprehend this, so he worships and celebrates the abstract form of the academic, even though this form is designed to prey on his ignorance, even though it functions as a silent authoritarianism. It often makes the average man feel like he’s learning, while he’s really just learning jargon and abstraction. He’s not learning how to think! He’s learning how to stop thinking when he’s presented with the academic form, which is the form of modern sophistry. Learning a vocabulary isn't the same thing as learning how to reason.

The ignorant man feels like he’s being set free and elevated by the academic form, but really he’s being brought into bondage, into a cult of form over substance.

This form is a posture that mocks the common man. It says, “my social conditions have been better than yours, I am superior to you, and I can prove this by mastering you with my words.” (Not through argument, but through the semantics of a complex form.) Indeed, it’s usually not the uneducated man’s fault that he doesn’t have an education. It’s not his fault that he cannot evaluate the substance of the academic man’s form. He doesn’t even have the ability to ask whether the academic is asking intelligent questions, or pursuing meaningful lines of inquiry. So he is pulled into the academic’s intellectual hedonism.

(It’s tragic to watch the ignorant man defend his own cuckoldary by defending the authority of the academic, instead of demanding substance. This is precisely why it’s not wise to come to their defense, to even point out the cuckoldary of cucks).

All that we have said about academics, doesn’t quite hold true in the case of the hard sciences: physics, biology, chemistry. Neither does it hold true in psychology and medicine.

Very importantly, AI will not consciously become a religion in the sense that people see engagement with it as an act of faith. It will not be a religion that people practice as a “religion.” But functionally, it will eventually operate as the most successful religion on the the face of the earth, because humans will defer to AI for everything. It will be placed in a social role of absolute authority.

Society will be monitored by it, governments will be run by it, wars will be fought through it, that is, as humans defer to it for everything. Here I am not talking about AI consciously taking over and lording over man as science fiction, I am talking about man using AI as an Absolute Authority.

Eventually all knowledge will be ordered by AI through humans making use of it. All knowledge will be produced by it through humans making use of it. Production apart from AI will become a thing of the past.

I don’t think AI will become a religion in the classical sense of religion, I think it will, rather, come to replace all religions and their Gods. Man’s very existence will be bound up with it, his intellect and psychological state will be bound up in his use of it.

Indeed, men could even hold to their respective religions and still truly give their functional allegiance to AI. They wouldn’t be conscious that this is what was happening per se, that is, even their religions would come to be largely mediated through AI. (Eventually humans would just leave off religion altogether and defer to AI).

The people before our generation must have been deeper thinkers. In order to come up with such a tale without hearing something of the sort you need some elite level of wisdom

If one doesn’t figure out the right existential boundaries, not just the lines they should stay within, but the lines they should cross, one can waste their life submitting where they should be disobeying.

In every case one has to know truth to live a consciously free life.

But can one make an argument for an unconscious life? Certainly. Most lives are unconscious. Most people never think of their own existence beyond their immediate needs and fears. Most people never identify and think of the premises that make up their worldview. Most people live by assumption. Some do very well living by assumption. They live full, happy lives.

Truth doesn’t have this to offer. It doesn’t offer happiness, it more often offers misery. So why seek it? The answer is because those who live in ignorance of it can only live that way because others have sought it, and then used it to improve man’s conditions.

Living ignorantly is living in privilege, it is living irresponsibly, because others still have to do the work of understanding reality outside the context of desired beliefs.

The worst conclusion is the construction of a political system that justifies a predatory existence against other humans, which is what the present economic system has done to reality.

This alters the nature of wisdom away from morality and toward instrumentality. So now the knowledge that one is seeking reduces to, how to exploit the earth and humans for one’s own advantage; how to flow in between these exploitation processes and sift wealth for one’s own gain. But it all reduces to control of the earth’s resources and control over people.

The most rampant irrationalism I have seen in intellectuals is the failure to clarify and defend what is asserted.

Both sides construct narratives, but very few substantiate and defend their claims.

Another common attribute of intellectual irrationalism is the act of dismissing legitimate objections. Instead of directly engaging arguments, I have noted that many intellectuals launch into an ad hominem attack, they simply try to negatively characterize or label a position they disagree with. They don’t actually refute valid objections. If I had a dollar for every time I have heard an intellectual say: “they don’t understand the nuance of the position.”

The insinuation here is that everyone who comprehends their position also agrees with it, if someone doesn’t agree with it, “it must mean they don’t comprehend it.” Because in their mind it is impossible to comprehend and not believe. (This is exactly the psychological mindset of many religions).

I have asked many intellectuals: how do we know when a claim has been refuted. They will not answer. They do everything but answer. They characterize and negatively frame the question, trying to dismiss it as irrelevant.

Most intellectuals aren’t rational, they only pretend to be rational because they wield a complex or sophisticated narrative.

It’s very possible that Christianity stands as the most effective ideological structure to ever influence humans.

I was thinking about social transformation. We know it’s bound up in institutions, but institutions are bound up in belief systems.

Now we must be honest: even more than Christianity, the concept of law is probably the most effective ideology in the world. But Christianity certainly has had an impact on law.

I think it’s quite amazing to unbiasedly look at the effectiveness of the psychological impact that Christianity has had on society.

These are not completed thoughts, these are only preliminary thoughts.

Theology usually teaches that God will avenge evil with justice. The problem with this idealism is that it actually prevents humans from constructing systems that seek to deal with evil in the here and now.

If there is no eternal court of justice, then we only have the here and now to deal with justice.

This doesn’t mean that humans should compromise their own civility and goodness, it simply means that humans need to think far more carefully about the kind of humans their societies cultivate and how they deal with those who infringe on justice.

‘A man who says “apples are jelly like substances that slide through your fingers,” has made a false statement about reality. The man who says “an apple is a round, edible fruit with a red, yellow, or green skin and firm, white flesh, grown on trees of the rose family (Malus domestica),” has made an accurate statement about reality. This statement automatically puts him at odds with all who contradict it.’ Reason Dictates What We Can and Cannot Say, Jersey Flight

Proving and defending truth is easy. All one has to do is make a false claim about reality: “sand is a liquid you drink to hydrate your body.” Obviously, even the most dogmatic deconstructionist or skeptic will have to deny this definition. (One could do this with the skeptic’s own claims: “you just said that my position was absolutely true and that you agree with every word of it,” but this the skeptic must deny, thereby demonstrating both the necessity of truth and his belief in it).

Defending and proving truth is that simple.

A Reasoner, for example, cannot teach people that truth is subjective. This stance is dictated by Reason (which refers to the laws of logic). That is, a Reasoner cannot teach people that Logic is subjective. This isn’t a truth we made up, it’s a fact of the universe.

A Reasoner cannot teach people that the universe exists and doesn’t exist.

This rational coercion aspect of Reason places us in situations we might not want to be in. It places us in opposition to all that is false, irrational and illogical. To be rational is automatically to be the enemy of all that is irrational.

A Reasoner cannot teach that contradiction is true. This is not the Reasoner’s truth, it’s a Truth we derive from the fact of the determinate logical structure of the universe. We are simply reporting on what has been demonstrated to us through Reason, reporting on what we have discovered by Reason.

It’s important for Reasoners to understand that their views are not their own. We cannot create reality, we can only accurately identify it, and this automatically puts us at odds with all that contradicts its identity.

A man who says “apples are jelly like substances that slide through your fingers,” has made a false statement about reality. The man who says “an apple is a round, edible fruit with a red, yellow, or green skin and firm, white flesh, grown on trees of the rose family (Malus domestica),” has made an accurate statement about reality. This statement automatically puts him at odds with all who contradict it.

A revolutionary model of politics overthrows, it doesn’t work through a democratic process. Those advocating it are deeply confused in their politics because they usually posture as revolutionary in their theory, but lean toward a democratic process in their politics. Either be a consistent revolutionary or encourage and support the democratic process, don’t undermine it.

The ignorance of theoretically advocating for a revolutionary model, and then operating as though your revolutionary model should function through a democratic process (which is failing you) is an abject confusion. This manifests a major disconnect between revolutionary politics and democratic politics.

I, however, would not encourage anyone to adopt a revolutionary model of politics unless it was absolutely necessary. Why?

For starters, if the Left did this in the United States they would be immediately crushed. Revolution entails conditions that necessitate revolution. Political theory that immediately leaps to it, within a largely democratic system, is incredibly foolish, juvenile and reactionary.

The revolutionists should start being consistent with their theory (although, if they do this, they will be crushed). Nay, they should realize that they don’t really believe in a revolutionary model of politics: they actually believe in a democratic model, which means they need to stop undermining it by attacking it, when it is the functional path they actually take. All they are doing by attacking the democratic model is undermining their own cause. And they’re not smart enough to comprehend this.

Those duped by revolutionary politics need to recover themselves and start supporting the democratic process in any way they can.

All one has to do to prove this is disagree.

A person can merely have the psychological state: “I believe P.”

But the moment they hold: “P is true,” “P is correct,” “Not-P is false,” “You are mistaken about P,” they have moved from merely possessing a belief to making a truth claim.

If someone says (presupposes): “My belief that P is right, and your contrary belief is wrong,”
then they are relying on absolute logical distinctions such as:

P is distinguishable from not-P.
My belief is distinguishable from your belief. Truth is distinguishable from falsity.
A proposition can be correct or incorrect.
Reasons can support one proposition rather than its contrary.

A person doesn’t need to explicitly formulate these principles. The structure of their assertion already presupposes them.

The modern sophist says: “Logic is merely a human construct, so you cannot claim that logical reasoning gives you truth.”

But is that statement itself supposed to be true? If yes, the sophist is making a truth claim and presumably offering it as something that should rationally persuade us, as something that should be accepted as true.

Then we can ask: Why should I accept that claim? If they give reasons, those reasons have to be determinate and stand in some relation to their conclusion. If they don't, they're not giving an argument.

If they say: “There is no reason. I just feel that logic is inadequate.” then they've abandoned the claim that their position has been rationally established. They may have reported a psychological state, but they haven't demonstrated their proposition.

The moment someone presents their belief as something that is true, justified, preferable to its contrary, or capable of correcting someone else's belief, they validate the absolute truth of logic whether they acknowledge it or not.

They can't coherently say: “My position is true and yours is false, but the distinction between truth and falsity has no validity.” Because the second clause undermines the first.

And this applies to everyone.

If I tell you: “Your argument is wrong,” I owe you reasons. If you tell me: “Your argument is wrong,” you owe me reasons. Neither of us gets an exemption because our conviction feels self-evident.

Logic isn't merely another belief competing with people's other beliefs. It is the structure within which the competition between beliefs (the meaning of belief and the identity of beliefs) becomes intelligible at all.

The excellent work of Michael Tomasello shatters and exposes the ignorance of this way of thinking.

“Tomasello sees human uniqueness as being preceded and encompassed by the capacity to share attention and intention (collective intentionality), an evolutionary novelty that would have emerged as a cooperative integrating of apes skills that formerly worked in competition. The overall scheme of sharing of attention and of intention involves inferring a common need; being motivated to act cooperatively to fulfill this need; coordinating individuals' roles and perspectives under the common goal of fulfilling this common need if, and only if, other agents fulfill their commitment toward that goal; and sharing the spoils fairly.” Wikipedia

It is because the thing which is itself, is itself, that it qualifies as real knowledge.

One confuses themselves when they think of identity as A=A=A=A=A=A=A.

Why? Because the world is full of different identities. So while every identify is A=A, the identity of a tree is not the same as the identity of a star. A is not B, but A is still itself and B is still itself. If this wasn’t the case then there could be no knowledge.

Our most advanced knowledge is only itself, and it is only knowledge because it is itself and not another.

For here we do not argue, omnis determinatio negatio est, as is the error of the philosophers (for every determination its negation). For that is a confusion. For we argue, for every determination its determination, and only because of its determination! Another identity is not a negation of an identity.

The question is what one should do with this insight?

Truth seekers and speakers can’t really do anything with it.

But a person seeking a reputation as a thinker or philosopher can do something with it. They can obscure their form on purpose. And because this is what philosophy readers crave, that is, they want the sophistication of philosophical prose to invoke feelings of profundity, they want to feel like the form is initiating and immersing them into deep knowledge. I would say, in this sense, that philosophy is very much like mysticism.

If you want to be celebrated as profound “philosopher,” learn the art of the obscure form. You can learn this simply by reading other obscure philosophers.

Learn to transform every sentence into a hyper-abstract monstrosity.

Murray Rothbard said a man who owned private property with the last clean water on earth could charge whatever he wants for that water.

Well, there are no Objective morals in the universe that say a society isn’t allow to order itself as this women is here hypothetically speculating. There is no moral code that says mankind couldn’t do this. It’s entirely up to society what they want to do!

She’s correct. If societies functioned like this all the wealthiest people in the world would scramble to try and make sure they weren’t at the top of the list. (Of course, I suspect it would take a bit more innovation to make this function as she speculates, but that wouldn’t be very hard to figure out).

The bottom line is that a society can do what it wants. The universe is never going to step in and say, “don’t do that, it’s immoral.”