(December 13, 2011 at 5:23 am)genkaus Wrote:(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.
I think the basic argument of the statement is that it is intued, which would mean that you need to refute that aspect and not the fact that you can personally justify reasons why reason is the best way to gain knowledge.
Your opinions on the axioms of truth are very interesting, and probably true. Like I said before, I don't know the answer, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
