Locke On(to) Reason Not Faith
I am currently reading and enjoying this book. I had never before been introduced to Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding(1690). Although the quote below refers tho the Doctrine of Innate Ideas, I am struck that this is how I feel about faith:
"...it eased the lazy from the pains of search, and stopped the enquiry of the doubtful.....to make this the Principle of Principles: that principles need not be questioned."
Thoughts?
"...it eased the lazy from the pains of search, and stopped the enquiry of the doubtful.....to make this the Principle of Principles: that principles need not be questioned."
Thoughts?
You can perhaps derive Objectivism from Existence [ well, you probably can, and obviously, AR did, I'm not that smart, yet] , but (aside from the fact that existence is patently obvious and those questioning it are deluded or deranged [ just trying to make it clear I don't question it, my condolences (but no apology) to any who do]) you cannot go the other way, can you? At best Existence is suggested as pragmatically necessary, which I think is different than proven, or have I missed something?
to your point, answered above
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ration...
do I have the gulch street cred of being unlamb-like? seriously, I am as sweet as a daisy
In Objectivism, my opinion, the fundamentals are based on observation. Observations are testable.
religion as an attempt to understand the world, define one's place in the world, an attempt to control and manipulate-power (intellectual, spiritual, governmental, personal).
to your first point about questioning ones self. Part of self-esteem is the reasoned process of introspection. who am I? why am I here? and you will do this your entire life, in my opinion, in order to check under the hood, see what needs tweaking.
the point of the quote is about acceptance of premises that cannot be tested or vetted through reason. what would be the rational point of NOT using the tools of reason to discern whether a premise held? it's painful to have doubts and believe simultaneously, so better to end the search into truth by using reason.
but also, it is about how knowledge is acquired. If not innate(ability to acquire knowledge), then it must be given or revealed. who or what can do this? and who are the powerful keepers of this knowledge, coming up with these principles which may not be questioned? that establishment or individual(s) can hold power over one who accepts that knowledge cannot be acquired through one's own faculties of reason.
feel free to disagree-and this is my own interpretation of the passage, I'm no expert, just a learner
This is what I come up with:
So look at reason and the facts behind the principles of faith that are not in question, and make your own judgment about it, but use logic to determine your principles.????????