• In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Are You a Platonist, a Jeffersonian, or a Humean?

#169: Dec. - Mar. 2020 & #109: Jul. - Sept. 2012 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Are You a Platonist, a Jeffersonian, or a Humean?

Unread post

I see it that way, too, Dexter. There are cross-purposes with Robert and Haidt. They're not on the same page, or however else we might put it. Perhaps later in the book, Haidt comes closer to "should" statements, but right now he's showing us the results of an investigation that has a strong bearing on human nature.
scotchbooks
Getting Comfortable
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:19 pm
13
Location: San Tan Valley, AZ
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Are You a Platonist, a Jeffersonian, or a Humean?

Unread post

As a relative newcomer to this list, I cannot say with certainty that I belong to any of the three camps discussed in this thread but I have thought for some time about Haidt's arguments pertaining to the underlying science and philosophy guiding its application. It seems to me he argues that intuitions come first and that our emotions motivate and guide the rational arguments we make in defense of our intuitions. Thus, if a particular proposition or position elicits a positive reaction from me then the position I take in subsequent reasoning is "can I believe this?" and I will look at all available information through the lens of selecting evidence which does support my favored position (Kahneman in Thinking Fast and Slow describes the heuristics underlying such a selection). If, on the other hand, the position evokes a negative reaction my analysis becomes "must I believe this?" and my unconscious filters lead me to select evidence refuting the position (while avoiding seeing any supportive data lying about). So we use rationality in daily life to justify our beliefs and to wonder why the idiots on the other side fail to see the obvious supporting evidence so apparent to us.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Are You a Platonist, a Jeffersonian, or a Humean?

Unread post

scotchbooks wrote:As a relative newcomer to this list, I cannot say with certainty that I belong to any of the three camps discussed in this thread but I have thought for some time about Haidt's arguments pertaining to the underlying science and philosophy guiding its application. It seems to me he argues that intuitions come first and that our emotions motivate and guide the rational arguments we make in defense of our intuitions. Thus, if a particular proposition or position elicits a positive reaction from me then the position I take in subsequent reasoning is "can I believe this?" and I will look at all available information through the lens of selecting evidence which does support my favored position (Kahneman in Thinking Fast and Slow describes the heuristics underlying such a selection). If, on the other hand, the position evokes a negative reaction my analysis becomes "must I believe this?" and my unconscious filters lead me to select evidence refuting the position (while avoiding seeing any supportive data lying about). So we use rationality in daily life to justify our beliefs and to wonder why the idiots on the other side fail to see the obvious supporting evidence so apparent to us.
Thanks a lot for your post. Robert Tulip also refers to Kahneman's book, so I need to get a hold of that. I don't know if it makes a decisive difference that Haidt is talking specifically about positions we would call moral. It's probably hard to find any position that doesn't have something to do with our making a moral choice. But you're correct that he does believe that 'intuitions first' is the rule. Robert has interpreted this as some kind of advocacy position, but Haidt is just trying to use science to figure out the reality of our nature. Doesn't mean he's right, but he is trying to describe what is, not telling us what should be.

Some people seem to think that Haidt must be denigrating reasoning, reversing what they would like to think is the true proportion of consciously controlled reasoning vs. unconscious processing. It depends how you look at it, though. The unconscious base is earlier, for sure, and has a lot to do with our survival ability. But the capacity added later, the rational capacity that added so much volume to the hominid brain, must also have contributed a great deal to our species' ability to survive, and it also defined what it is to be human, obviously. So you could say that the 1% was a damned important 1%, and you'd be right. But Haidt's proportion of 99% elephant to 1% rider doesn't necessarily have to be accepted; it's not based on any quantification that I know of. It's a metaphor--an effective one, I think. You could pick 50/50 and defend that, I suppose. Haidt just thinks that our moral decision-making has a lot of similarity to other more or less automatic processes that have evolved. Those processes give us a springboard for the reasons we provide for our moral preferences. We aren't necessarily lying or dissembling as we make these statements. It can be important, though, to recognize that there is a degree of determinism and non-rationality to our morality.
User avatar
Saffron

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I can has reading?
Posts: 2954
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:37 pm
15
Location: Randolph, VT
Has thanked: 474 times
Been thanked: 399 times
United States of America

Re: Are You a Platonist, a Jeffersonian, or a Humean?

Unread post

I'm posting an answer to your original question: Humean. I have been persuaded - actually, it didn't take much persuading, I was most of the way there before I began reading the book.
Locked

Return to “The Righteous Mind - by Jonathan Haidt”