RE: Rationally proving rationality
December 12, 2011 at 10:22 am
(This post was last modified: December 12, 2011 at 10:38 am by Perhaps.)
"The refutation lies in the meaning of the word rationality. Rationality is exercise of reason and reason is based on identification of reality. The world is a part of reality. Thus, rationality is not just a "good" way of looking at the world, it is the "only" to actually look at it. To see the world without rationality is like looking at something without actually looking at it - its self-contradictory."
- By using this refutation you avoid the original premise of the statement, "There is no way to rationally prove that rationality is the best way to look at the world. We intue it...". It is most true that rationality is the exercise of reason which is based on the identification of reality. This, however, does not refute the statement.
The point of the statement is to show the audience that rationality is intued to be the best (and effectively the only) method of thought. If you take away the intuition that it is the only way to look at the world then you allow critical analysis and evaluation upon the topic. Once this occurs you may attempt to use rationality - the exercise of reason - in order to prove that rationality is the best way to look at the world.
One, such as yourself, could reasonably infer that rationality is the only method of thought through which to view the world as it pertains to reality, and as you say: "To see the world without rationality is like looking at something without actually looking at it...". But what must be realized is that you intued that conclusion. If you analyze why it was reasonable for you to infer that rationality is the only method through which to view the world you are forced to use explanations prosteriori (derived from observed facts). And as was stated earlier, all things are equal and all facts are a posteriori, we have nothing more than competing claims based on its functionalism or pragmatic value. This introduces subjectivity of fact into the discussion and effectively limits your ability to infer an objective conclusion.
Once again I will state what I said earlier. If you want to make a claim about the superiority of a value system or in the least a way of thinking, you seek to make a claim that is outside the closed system - which really has no rational basis for support of it. Rationality is a good way of thinking in a closed system nature, not the only way, and it is certainly not able to be called the best way, for one does not have a rational basis to support the claim of superiority.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"I just noticed a fallacy in the original quote there - which states "Even rationality is grounded in a leap of intuition."
Is it? Says who?
Like you say it is an exeicise of reason and reason is based on identification of reality. And reality, what is real, is based on facts and testable, repeatable evidence."
- How can you prove that reason is based on identification of reality? or that reality is based on facts and testable, repeatable evidence? One must find an origin for what is considered factual statements. That origin is intuition. This intuition allows rationality which allows reason which allows facts which allows reality (as we know it).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Guys, I by no means am saying that I know the correct refutation/concession to the statement I provided. I do honestly appreciate all the thought you have put into this, and I want to make clear that I am only playing devil's advocate with my counter refutations. Your input has helped me greatly in further understanding my stance on the subject.
"I assume a rational thinker would base their thinking on facts, therefore making that line of thinking factual?..."
- Yes, that makes sense. The perception of fact however is confirmed by reason which is confirmed by rationality which is ultimately intued.
"...Surely the conclusions of a bunch of different people all thinkng rationally, if they are the same then that confirms the validity of rational thinking?..."
- Once again, the same could be said about any type of thought. Just because it 'proves' itself doesn't mean it's the best or most objective. I could easily exchange the words rationally with irrationally and rational with irrational into the same quote and it works perfectly.
- By using this refutation you avoid the original premise of the statement, "There is no way to rationally prove that rationality is the best way to look at the world. We intue it...". It is most true that rationality is the exercise of reason which is based on the identification of reality. This, however, does not refute the statement.
The point of the statement is to show the audience that rationality is intued to be the best (and effectively the only) method of thought. If you take away the intuition that it is the only way to look at the world then you allow critical analysis and evaluation upon the topic. Once this occurs you may attempt to use rationality - the exercise of reason - in order to prove that rationality is the best way to look at the world.
One, such as yourself, could reasonably infer that rationality is the only method of thought through which to view the world as it pertains to reality, and as you say: "To see the world without rationality is like looking at something without actually looking at it...". But what must be realized is that you intued that conclusion. If you analyze why it was reasonable for you to infer that rationality is the only method through which to view the world you are forced to use explanations prosteriori (derived from observed facts). And as was stated earlier, all things are equal and all facts are a posteriori, we have nothing more than competing claims based on its functionalism or pragmatic value. This introduces subjectivity of fact into the discussion and effectively limits your ability to infer an objective conclusion.
Once again I will state what I said earlier. If you want to make a claim about the superiority of a value system or in the least a way of thinking, you seek to make a claim that is outside the closed system - which really has no rational basis for support of it. Rationality is a good way of thinking in a closed system nature, not the only way, and it is certainly not able to be called the best way, for one does not have a rational basis to support the claim of superiority.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"I just noticed a fallacy in the original quote there - which states "Even rationality is grounded in a leap of intuition."
Is it? Says who?
Like you say it is an exeicise of reason and reason is based on identification of reality. And reality, what is real, is based on facts and testable, repeatable evidence."
- How can you prove that reason is based on identification of reality? or that reality is based on facts and testable, repeatable evidence? One must find an origin for what is considered factual statements. That origin is intuition. This intuition allows rationality which allows reason which allows facts which allows reality (as we know it).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Guys, I by no means am saying that I know the correct refutation/concession to the statement I provided. I do honestly appreciate all the thought you have put into this, and I want to make clear that I am only playing devil's advocate with my counter refutations. Your input has helped me greatly in further understanding my stance on the subject.
"I assume a rational thinker would base their thinking on facts, therefore making that line of thinking factual?..."
- Yes, that makes sense. The perception of fact however is confirmed by reason which is confirmed by rationality which is ultimately intued.
"...Surely the conclusions of a bunch of different people all thinkng rationally, if they are the same then that confirms the validity of rational thinking?..."
- Once again, the same could be said about any type of thought. Just because it 'proves' itself doesn't mean it's the best or most objective. I could easily exchange the words rationally with irrationally and rational with irrational into the same quote and it works perfectly.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
