Up@dawn 2.0

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Resigned Design

While perhaps verbally I can shuffle a few grandstanding moments together; typographically, that is, when writing, I prefer mathematics over prose. That is to say, even during my prose, I believe a substantive mathematical, logic based, argument should underly the linguistic fashion statement. (That should've been read in the most condescending snarky tone ever.)

At any rate, at times, nay, most of the time, the rhetorical satisfies a function of which the logical fails to do. That is, the rhetorical reveals and furnishes lines of argumentation in lights that the amicable and neutral mathematical order cannot do.

The expense, however, is that these arguments tend to rely on other's expertise in place of a unique respective argument. That's  to say, these arguments are actually arguments to convince someone to believe a more methodical and logically deduced argument. In example, Ted Cruz's parliamentary grandstanding during the recent fiscal cliff debacles have not been substantive number crunching seminars. They've been pleas of passion encroached in metaphysical, geocentric, patriotism. However, these things do refer to much more complex arguments.

That is to say, when Obama makes a speech about America resting on the values of hope and freedom, that argument itself is rhetorical. It has no real meaning outside of emotional manipulation, and thus it operates as a function to mold action or thought through emotional misdirection than to 'prove' any point based off evidence. However, it only works because the rhetorical argument refers to a logical argument. That is to say, 'hope' and 'freedom' do have a logically deducible connection to the american way of life based on the founders pluralistic notions of the concept borrowed from Montesquieu, Rousseau, Mills, and Locke, and instilled within the constitution, which governs the laws, of which influence societal practice and thought.

That's to generalize for examples sake of course. But we see here, Obama is not speaking directly of Locke or any other individuals logical conception, he is not directly addressing that one act based on those arguments, but based off of his arguments rhetorical prowess, and thus, ability to manipulate emotion. Such an argument is only successful, however, because, under scrutiny, the argument does refer, even if it does not directly address or precisely lay out, to a logical argument. Thus we see, rhetorical arguments do not operate on modes of 'proving' anything, they are tools to manipulate outcomes. They are complex manipulative enthymemes with logical referents. This is unlike mathematical or logical arguments, of which have the ability to prove, but are neutral, in a vacuum, to any outcome on any individual. This is because mathematical and logical arguments do  not convince people of anything, peoples own subjective interpretation, in interrelation to their own motives and conception of the world, force them to accept or deny facts.

So what does this have to do with Atheism?

The real topic at hand here is 'design?' Despite it's designer jeans and jumbled jargon, it is not the mathematical monolith it purports to be. Specifically, as we must see, we speak of intelligent design, which elevates its illusive enigmas to  precarious heights of which it does not have the foundations to tower.

Within the aforementioned paragraphs we have noted that rhetorical argument are only successful if they refer to logical arguments. It must be known that our usage of refer, function, and so forth, are in line with Frege and Russell's. Likewise, when we say success, we mean be able to accomplish its objective under scrutiny. With this in mind what of the rhetorical argument of which has no logical referent?

They are nonsense. Dangerous tools centered on manipulation. When someone gets on a soap box, and creates an emotionally demanding presentation that is not centered on logic we call them, fascist, nonsensical, illogical, charlatans, deceivers.

So what is intelligent design's logical referent if, by the case of the divine logician, one cannot logically infer the properties of objects outside of logic, and, by logics standards, the universe is that of chaos, flux, and chance? What could possibly be intelligent design's logical referent, if its progenitors lay claim that their designer has superlogical abilities? What is the status of such an argument?

Fascist, nonsensical, illogical, charlataneous, deception.
Resigned design.

Of course, to the keen eye, one might inquire the status of this argument.
- Schwarzwald


  1. I don't know of ANY Intelligent Design proponents, myself included, who claim that the Prime Cause is "illogical" or "supralogical". Are you sure that that is not a straw-man?

  2. You tell me? What is the logical referent of intelligent design?

    I only admit to having questions, and only commit to having them answered.

    1. In Intelligent Design, there is no specified referent beyond an intelligent one(s).

    2. See, that begs the question, what 'intelligent one?' Who, what, where? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions, the properties, attributes, phenomena? That would constitute the logical argument which is necessary to verify the status of the rhetorical argument. Does that make sense?

    3. It doesn't beg the question. The point of ID is NOT to posit a specific intelligence, only an Intelligence. The nature of that Intelligence must be relegated to Philosophy.

  3. It should also be noted here, that what you were doing is a perfect example of the mechanism of rhetoric, in that it refers to a logical example, but does not explicitly state it or formulate a unique argument to found it claims. Which is not good or bad, for the record, until the logical argument is consulted.

    1. It's not meant to explicitly state or formulate one.