RE: Rationally proving rationality
December 13, 2011 at 5:23 am
(This post was last modified: December 13, 2011 at 6:19 am by genkaus.)
(December 12, 2011 at 10:22 am)Perhaps Wrote: - 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.
You haven't made an argument. You have simply made a claim. Let's examine that claim a little.
According to you, it is out intuition that tells us that rationality is the best way to look at reality.
Rationality means using reason to gain knowledge.
Intuition means knowledge gained without use of reason.
By definition, these two are opposites. In effect, your statement becomes "There is no reason to think that using reason is the best way to gain knowledge about this world. But that is something we just know." However, even if just one good reason to use rationality as a tool for knowing the world is provided, that is ample refutation for this statement. If the premise of an argument is refuted, the rest of it falls apart automatically.
(December 12, 2011 at 10:22 am)Perhaps Wrote: 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.
Fair enough. Critical analysis and evaluation of the topic is always welcome.
(December 12, 2011 at 10:22 am)Perhaps Wrote: 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.
You'll have to explain the bolded part a little better, since it makes no sense to me. And in the end - facts can't be subjective. They are objective by nature.
However, from what I see here, your position is based on a false dichotomy. According to you, the only way to gain any knowledge is either by rationality or by intuition, i.e. either by using reason or without reason. That much is correct. However, then you equate using reason to deriving knowledge form observation. "Use explanations prosteriori (derived from observed facts)". That is incorrect.
You are ignoring something called axiomatic truths. These axioms - such as axiom of existence and axiom of identity - are not known deductively or intuitively. Rather they are discovered to be the basis of reason and knowledge. These are prerequisites for reason, therefore, reason cannot be used to prove them. But they are not known automatically either, since they are discovered when one considers what is required for reason to be valid.
The only way to show their validity, is by showing that even a statement negating those axioms assumes them to be true. For example, if you claim "There is no knowledge", you are claiming to know something. These facts are not known intuitively, since they can be discovered, using reason, as the starting point of reason and by discovering that without them being, words such as reason, knowledge, truth and facts are all meaningless.
(December 12, 2011 at 10:22 am)Perhaps Wrote: 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.
If you are "thinking", you are trying to use reason. You may make assumptions without thought (the so-called "intuitive knowledge"), but you cannot think without reasoning.
(December 12, 2011 at 10:22 am)Perhaps Wrote: How can you prove that reason is based on identification of reality?
Isn't that tautological?
(December 12, 2011 at 10:22 am)Perhaps Wrote: or that reality is based on facts and testable, repeatable evidence?
Its the other way around. Facts and evidence are based on reality.
(December 12, 2011 at 10:22 am)Perhaps Wrote: One must find an origin for what is considered factual statements.
The origin is the axiomatic statements that form the basis of all knowledge.
(December 12, 2011 at 10:22 am)Perhaps Wrote: That origin is intuition. This intuition allows rationality which allows reason which allows facts which allows reality (as we know it).
No. Intuition implies that it is known automatically. These axioms are discovered when one finds that without them, no knowledge is possible.
(December 12, 2011 at 10:22 am)Perhaps Wrote: 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.
Okay, this part makes no sense. For something to be the best there must be some objective standard to measure it by. If we are talking about this world here, the standard would be correspondence to reality.
The term "most objective" is similarly senseless. Something is objective if it is based on reality and independent of a person's mind. Something that is objective, like rationality, is automatically the best way to gain knowledge about reality.
(December 12, 2011 at 8:30 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: 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.
I think the "leap of intuition" being referred to here is "How do you know that reality is real?"
Since whatever reason you can give for reality being real would be based on reality itself, the reason would become invalid if reality itself becomes invalid.
Two considerations are missing here. First, "what is real is real" is a tautological statement, something that is true by definition. Any negation of this statement, such as "Reality is an illusion", is basically self-contradictory. Second, this statement forms the basis of all knowledge. So to say that this statement is "known" either by reason or intuition, is meaningless. This statement is assumed to be true for knowledge to be possible.
