(October 17, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Hahaha, I just thought of a very simple way to put this. You don't need reason to use your senses, and nothing about what you sense has to be rational (think about the nutjobs who talk to Elvis through their shoes...does the universe even need to be rational for such a sense experience? Meh, I think not).....but you -do- need to use your senses to use reason.So, I have concluded that you're correct that logical axioms have their root in common sense, and can only be determined rational or irrational to the extent that they are internally consistent within their formal systems, and true or false as facts about the world insofar as their correlates in experience can be demonstrated... that being said, is it possible to know if such judgments as I have stated them (a) have any bearing on the nature of reality at large, or (b) are only restricted to the relationship between the knower and the known? It seems to me that the difference between realism and idealism boils down to how that question is answered. Or © is the distinction of (a) and (b) a false dichotomy? or (d) have I totally gotten the two positions wrong?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
