RE: Rationally proving rationality
December 15, 2011 at 5:05 am
(This post was last modified: December 15, 2011 at 5:12 am by genkaus.)
(December 14, 2011 at 4:26 pm)Perhaps Wrote: No it's not. You can't refute the statement that it is intued by stating a justification for why it is helpful.
But I'm not giving giving a justification based on utility, I'm giving one based on tautology. The utility of reason is a consequence, not the cause, of it being the process of identification of reality.
To be clear, I'm not giving a justification of why it is useful, I'm simply giving a justification of why it is correct and by doing this I'm showing that it is not intued.
"The basic argument, as far as I can see, is that the statement "Reason is the best tool to gain knowledge" is intuitive. That means, this statement cannot be justified by reason but is known to us automatically. In effect, the author is saying "I can't explain why reason is the best way to gain knowledge, I just know it to be true". "
(December 14, 2011 at 4:26 pm)Perhaps Wrote: It only falls apart if you show that it is non-intuitive, providing a reason for its usefulness does not negate the statement.
Its usefulness is the consequence of its validity. If I was justifying its validity based on its usefulness, I'd be guilty of logical fallacy called arguing from consequences. What I'm doing is showing you that since it is axiomatically or tautologically true, it is, in fact, non-intuitive.
(December 14, 2011 at 4:26 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Suppose it is true by definition meaning that it is true by tautology. Is tautology not intued? The point of this whole thing is to show that some things are intued to be true, and because of this intuition there is no real way to ensure ourselves that what we are doing is correct - no matter how helpful, useful, resourceful, etc.
No. Tautologies are established - not known automatically, which is what intuition means.
And there is a way to establish everything as correct without relying on intuition or judging it by its utility - By establishing that any alternative leads to an inescapable contradiction.
(December 14, 2011 at 4:26 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Most individuals don't know what they would do without reason, but suppose for an instant that there are other ways to think that oppose reason, and further, that when you use those other ways much more can be analyzed and thought about.
The process of thinking and analyzing requires the use of reason. And I'm not talking about random thoughts that seem to pop into your head. I'm talking about endeavor to gain knowledge. Try to do so and you'll find out why it is impossible.
(December 14, 2011 at 4:26 pm)Perhaps Wrote: I will repeat once again, I do believe that reason and rational thought are the best ways to approach our physical world, but when approaching a topic not within this universe, why would we use something that only applies to our reality? something that only applies to our dimensions?
Just something to think about.
Think about this. The word universe means everything that exists. The word reality contains everything that is. By definition, nothing can exist outside reality and outside the universe. That is a contradiction in terms in the same way as "the edge of the earth" or "north to north pole". And the term "our reality" is misleading, since reality does not depend on us, we are a part of reality.
(December 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm)Perhaps Wrote: If you feel that way then there's no need to respond further. As for the topics which do not pertain to our universe, reality, or dimensions - God could be among them.
IF god exists then he is a part of the universe and reality. The universe is everything in existence. By definition, everything that exists is a part of it.