RE: Rationally proving rationality
December 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm
(This post was last modified: December 14, 2011 at 7:57 pm by Perhaps.)
Norfolk and Chance:
"As for the topics which do not pertain to our universe, reality, or dimensions - God could be among them." I posted it twice now.
"I disagree. According to your definition all I have to do is use some observations to come to an answer. So here goes: rationality is rational because it seems to work pretty fucking well.
How's that?"
---- "...Even rationality is grounded in a leap of intutition. There is no way to rationally prove that rationallity is a good way to look at the world. We intue it - that it is very helpful. And as we know, according to Pascal, the end point of rationallity is to demonstrate the limits to rationality." ----
- I'm having trouble understanding why you think it's possible to negate the argument that its intued by providing an explanation for how it is useful. If I say that something is true simply because its true you cannot negate that statement by saying that its useful therefore its true. It simply doesn't work. The only way to rationally prove that rationality is a good way to look at the world is by tautology (as was stated earlier). From this then we have to ask how we prove tautology. The answer could be that it is intued to be true (in other words, the only way to prove that definition proves itself is to assume that that is evidence of proof.) You make an assumption - intuition.
"As for the topics which do not pertain to our universe, reality, or dimensions - God could be among them." I posted it twice now.
"I disagree. According to your definition all I have to do is use some observations to come to an answer. So here goes: rationality is rational because it seems to work pretty fucking well.
How's that?"
---- "...Even rationality is grounded in a leap of intutition. There is no way to rationally prove that rationallity is a good way to look at the world. We intue it - that it is very helpful. And as we know, according to Pascal, the end point of rationallity is to demonstrate the limits to rationality." ----
- I'm having trouble understanding why you think it's possible to negate the argument that its intued by providing an explanation for how it is useful. If I say that something is true simply because its true you cannot negate that statement by saying that its useful therefore its true. It simply doesn't work. The only way to rationally prove that rationality is a good way to look at the world is by tautology (as was stated earlier). From this then we have to ask how we prove tautology. The answer could be that it is intued to be true (in other words, the only way to prove that definition proves itself is to assume that that is evidence of proof.) You make an assumption - intuition.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
