SANCTITY OF SENSES AND REASON
Contents:
Direct perception (i.e. sense-perception and direct perception of mental states) is our only direct contact with reality. Any irreducible unit that enters our consciousness is a direct contact with reality, i.e. it is of and from some part of reality apart from our consciousness. Such a unit, being irreducible, cannot be conceptual, since a consciousness can only reach concepts by integrating its material; such material, thus, has to be direct perception.
Key clarification: “The invalidity of revelation” from Knowledge and Certainty from Epistemology from Philosophy
This fact is axiomatic. If we try to deny it, we deny it on what basis? Evidently, on the basis of either an innate idea or an irreducible unit that did not come from reality, i.e. that did not come from existence, i.e. that is non-existent. The latter is a dead-end, so what about the former? An innate idea is a concept gained by a consciousness without integrating any material, i.e. without tying similar units under a single definition; evidently, this is no concept at all. Thus, this is also a dead-end.
A value-judgement on a thing is the treatment (intellectual and/or practical) of the thing that either serves to accept and integrate it into your life (a positive judgement, regarding it as a value) or reject and disintegrate from your life (a negative judgement, regarding it as an anti-value). A “neutral” value-judgement is a contradiction in terms; it means relating things to your values (i.e. making a value-judgement) without relating them to your values (i.e. being “neutral”). Hence, what we may speak of as a “neutral” stance is merely a lack of value-judgement.
Evidently, value-judgement presupposes a grasp of values, a standard of value, and one or more views that relate things in reality to facts/assumptions, including facts/assumptions of how they relate to our values. Hence, we see that our internalised premises (i.e. views, assumptions, knowledge, etc. that we have adopted to the point of consistent and practically automatic acceptance) are inextricably tied to value-judgements.
Emotions are a form of value-judgement, and thus, emotions too are tied inextricably to our premises. In short, the ideas we absorb shape our values and thereby our emotions, our reactions and our virtue/vice-oriented instincts. Thus, premises, values and emotions exist as an integrated system within a self-driven (i.e. thinking) consciousness, i.e. within a volitional consciousness.
Note that values, like knowledge, are contextual, i.e. the relate to a range of facts relevant to some purpose. An out-of-context “value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep beyond any range of facts relevant to any purpose, i.e. it is a purposeless pursuit, which means a pursuit not tied to one’s life and thereby not tied to one’s values; a contradiction. Hence, if a broader value does not apply to a man’s context, then it is not a value in that context.
A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. Something that is merely a wish has, by itself, no effect on one’s life unless one acts upon that wish, or unless one affects oneself via the act of wishing (e.g. wasting time, feeling excited, etc.). In the first case, the wish becomes a value. In the second case, one acts either to lose opportunities for action or to gain and/or keep some state of consciousness; the former is a loss of life-affirmation, and the latter on its own cannot affirm your life concretely in the long-term, because life has objective needs that cannot be resolved merely through subjective experience. Thus, a value is fundamentally unlike a wish, in that it is what concretely shapes one’s actions and thereby one’s state of life.
In reality, ultimately, only concretes exist; abstractions are a way to consciously organise and relate concretes. Thus, an abstract value only exists if one acts to concretise it through its concrete expressions. For example, if one values self-esteem, one acts as per one’s moral principles, atones for his guilt if he has earned any, etc. As another example, if one values independence, one acts to acquire the ability to survive, work and/or trade value-for-value. If one merely sits idle while claiming to value independence, the claim is evidently only a claim; it has no meaning, in fact, unless he acts upon this statement of value.
A broader value is a more abstract value. Evidently, then, a broader value cannot be pursued by contradicting any narrower value that concretises it. The reason for this is, in fact, the law of non-contradiction, which is a corollary of the law of identity. If a man accepts the contradiction of a narrower expression of a broader value (which he does regard as a value within his context), he accepts that the narrower expression is in fact not a value, i.e. not worth gaining and keeping within his context.
But if it is truly the expression of the broader value, i.e. if it is truly the means to concretise the broader value within his context, then the acceptance of its contradiction means the broader value is not worth gaining and/or keeping within his context. Then, the broader value is not a value within his context. If, however, he claims to accept the broader value within his context while rejecting the value of its narrower expression in the same context, he is accepting a contradiction that destroys the meaning of the concept of “value”, since here, he speaks of a value that must not be concretised, i.e. that which one must not seek to gain and/or keep.
To value reality is to value one’s core ties to reality, i.e. one’s direct perception. Thus, it means we must hold the validity of sense-perception and reason as sacrosanct. Consider if we deny the validity sense-perception. Then, on what basis can we value reality? Evidently, on the basis of innate ideas (which do not exist) and units of nothing; in short, on no basis whatsoever. If we deny the validity of sense-perception, we disregard the value for reality.
Reason is the power of identifying things in reality and integrating our identification into abstractions, which let us focus selectively on what we identify so as to bring to focus the facts that were implicit but not obvious initially. Now, how do we identify things in reality? Through direct perception, chiefly sense-perception. Thus, to deny the validity sense-perception is to disregard reason.
Note that denying the validity sense-perception holds an inherent contradiction, i.e. we claim as invalid the only basis we have of validating anything. Thus, if we insist on our denial, we must start with something arbitrary. Now, the only way to choose something arbitrary is by subjective whim; if there were an objective way to choose it, it would not be arbitrary.
If our most basic premises are based on subjective whim, then what would we think of the law of non-contradiction? This law is based on the law of identity, which in turn is based the fact that what is, is, i.e. based on the affirmation and acceptance of our direct grasp of things in existence. Hence, by denying its root, we make the law of non-contradiction a matter of whim as well, i.e. a matter of subjective suggestion.
Now, we see the logical end-results of the denial of the validity of the senses. But what about the practical and psychological end-results? Evidently, since premises are integrated to value-judgements and emotions, and since our premises make valuing reality impossible, our value-judgements orient us toward either skeptical uncertainty (where we have no convictions and thus no confidence) or whim-worship (where we go by our range-of-the-moment impulses) or dogma (which is a form of systematised whim-worship). Our emotions lead to an indifference toward or even a hatred of reality, since our “values” clash with the rigours of reality. In effect, we cease to value our life in this world, either bemoaning existence or craving for something “beyond” it.
Furthermore, since values are an integrated whole, lacking value for reality also means lacking value for reason and logic. The choice to be rational becomes a matter of whim, sheer necessity or mere mental exercise. There is no conviction about logic, facts and science; such things become fluid, flexible and negotiable. In practice, this leads either to dogmatic bickering/fighting or pragmatic amorality and cowardice; we have no basis for being rational, so either anything goes or dogma rules.
Then die, I suppose, or be blind to your ruin. With a self like that, who needs enemies?