Subject: personal: direct reason

From: Mark Sulkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 15:59:26 -0500 (EST)

From: Bryan Douglas Caplan <[email-masked]>
>2. Is direct reason necessarily/by definition "self-critical and
>thoughtful"?  Now that is an interesting question.  The answer is yes.
>[...] if someone thought carefully and
>self-critically about a proposition and came to a conclusion, I would say
>that direct reason is at work.

	Okay.  So direct reason can only be used with mental effort?

>(This is different from saying that they
>are CORRECT, of course.  But they have at least used an
>in-principle-valid faculty.

	Okay.

>But I go further, and say that
>sometimes we can know something beyond a reasonable doubt without any
>"proof" at all.  That is, without any sort of deductive derivation.

	Okay.  I suppose so.

>Rather, sometimes we think about something, then see that it must be or
>probably is true.  As a paradigm example, take the proposition that the
>argument ad hominem is a fallacy.  I don't prove it; rather I see that
>it is true on its own merits, directly.

	I'd say that argument ad hominem is a fallacy because it
contains a premise about the nature of truth that is wrong -- that
the character (or whatever) of the person so attacked has a bearing
on the truth of a logical argument.  Usually, this is not so.

	Of course, if it was the case that the point of the argument
was to prove a person has a bad character, or is ugly, or whatever,
then the truth of the argument may be bound up with evidence to this
effect.

	Do you think I am using my direct reason here or not?  

>Indeed, the parallel between deductive/indirect reason and direct reason
>extends here; for just as I sometimes know that a deductive argument is
>PROBABLY right, so too do I sometimes know that an insight of direct
>reason is PROBABLY right.  It's not an all-or-nothing kind of thing.
>Maybe the misapprehension that direct reason is supposed to be
>infallible is what creates resistance to the notion?

	That's part of it.  I'm softening in my views to direct reason
now that it seems more "human" and less God-like.

>What makes observation so superior to the
>intellect that we should play down the intellect as much as possible?

	I'm just trying to increase the probability that the intellect
is paying attention to reality and not simply imagining it.  It's not
that I don't value the intellect; it's just that I value observation
as a "reality check".

>In fact, if you re-read your statement, you will notice that even you turn
>to the intellect to justify your observations; for what determines what
>conditions of observation are "reasonable"?  Surely not observation
>itself, for then we would have a circular argument.

	Touche!

>Is it obvious that a speeding car will hurt you upon impact?  Well, I
>think that we are confusing psychological with epistemological
>obviousness, here.

	I wanted to know your position on the matter.

>6. What does this have to do with morality? (My question, not yours.)
>Well, I think that direct reason can bridge the is-ought gap, and
>nothing else can.  How can you start with descriptive premises and get a
>prescriptive conclusion?  You can't unless you smuggle in a moral
>premise.  If you deny the existence of direct reason, you're stuck.  I
>say that we come to know the moral premise with direct reason.  That
>provides a non-circular explanation of moral knowledge that I have never
>seen anyone else provide.  And an extremely clear, clean, and simple
>explanation, I might add.

	Well, this is the meat of the problem.  Can we discuss this?
Could you make an ought statement and explain how direct reason is
involved?  What moral premise is being brought in?

	Also, since you admit direct reason could be wrong, how can we
know when it is?  What evidence must be brought to bear (either
observational or intellectual)?

	(Are there any books published on the subject of direct reason?)

Mark       | "Simplicity and truth of character are not produced by the
Andrew     | constraint of laws, nor by the authority of the state, and
Sulkowski  | absolutely no one can be forced or legislated into a state
           | of blessedness; the means required are faithful and brotherly
Sec/Treas  | admonition, sound education, and, above all, free use of the
  NFLP     | individual judgment."  -- Spinoza