What makes people irrational thinkers?

[LadyForCamus]

Hart makes the claim about physical reality being contingent multiple times, but thus far I haven’t come across any specific support for that assertion other than “something can’t come from nothing,” which is problematic for reasons i mentioned earlier. O
Also, there’s this:

“If it is one’s sordid fate to be an academic philosopher, one might even try to con- vince oneself that the question of existence is an inept or false query generated by the seductions of imprecise grammar, or one might simply adopt the analytic philosopher’s classic gesture of flinging one’s hands haplessly in the air and proclaiming that one simply finds the question entirely unintelligible. All of this, how- ever, is an abdication of the responsibility to think..”

On the contrary, that is a perfectly rational conclusion reached via intellectual honesty and humility regarding the limits of our own capabilities; the possibility that we simply don’t know, and may never know. This uncertainty seems profoundly uncomfortable for Hart as he mentions it as a reason to believe in the supernatural more than a few times in the first hundred pages. Uncomfortable and frustrating though it may be, the unknown does not give us intellectual license fill in the blanks using our imagination simply for the fact that it satisfies our curiosity and soothes our existential agitation.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It's not much of a delusion if everything goes right in your life and you have a good life 

Again are both of those true or is that just a delusion 

---

Hart makes a lot of claims about physical reality being contingent, but thus far I haven’t come across any specific support for that assertion. Also, there’s this:

“If it is one’s sordid fate to be an academic philosopher, one might even try to con- vince oneself that the question of existence is an inept or false query generated by the seductions of imprecise grammar, or one might simply adopt the analytic philosopher’s classic gesture of flinging one’s hands haplessly in the air and proclaiming that one simply finds the question entirely unintelligible. All of this, how- ever, is an abdication of the responsibility to think..”

On the contrary, that is a perfectly rational conclusion reached via intellectual honesty and humility regarding the limits of our own capabilities; the possibility that we simply don’t know, and may never know. This uncertainty seems profoundly uncomfortable for Hart as he mentions it as a reason to believe in the supernatural more than a few times in the first hundred pages. Uncomfortable and frustrating though it may be, the unknown does not give us intellectual license to simply make something up simply for the fact that it soothes our curiosity and agitation.

Indeed cheating by invoking magic is as good as not having an answer at all.

[Angrboda]

It's not much of a delusion if everything goes right in your life and you have a good life

Weren't you just telling us that you don't have money to buy Christmas gifts?

[Ahriman]

It's not much of a delusion if everything goes right in your life and you have a good life

Weren't you just telling us that you don't have money to buy Christmas gifts?

Money ain't everything

[polymath257]

Sure. But it wouldn’t be because you soundly reasoned to the correct conclusion.

Intuition is a valid form of information processing.

No, it is not. It frequently, even usually, gives the wrong answers. That is exactly what it means to be an invalid form of information processing.

---

I mean......putting all important decision making in the hands of a god, or some gods, might be irrational, but if they do everything right, who really cares if it's rational or not.

Any rational person?

[Angrboda]

Weren't you just telling us that you don't have money to buy Christmas gifts?

Money ain't everything

I see. So in other words you simply redefine "doing well" until your life situation matches. That's a form of equivocation which makes your conclusion that you're "doing well" invalid.

That's not doing well, that's just fooling oneself.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can be irrational but still be right, correct?

You can, absolutely - but the faithful are irrational....know they're irrational...- and know they're wrong...and still they insist.....

It's a heady brew. -Because they want a thing, and don't give a fuck whether it's right or wrong or rational. Course....I don't have to tell you that, now do I?

Again, until he can show that physical reality itself can’t exist necessarily, this argument is begging the question.

It isn't begging the question if there are elaborate arguments for it.

I'm also working on other things, so explicating the whole book isn't possible for me right now.

That's not actually how that works.  There are many elaborate arguments for irrational things. There being some elaborate piece of bullshit for a thing doesn't mean that the thing in question isn't question begging...jesus christ....?

Have you ever considered asking for your money back from wherever you pretend to have been educated?

[Deesse23]

Money ain't everything

I see.  So in other words you simply redefine "doing well" until your life situation matches.  That's a form of equivocation which makes your conclusion that you're "doing well" invalid.

That's not doing well, that's just fooling oneself.

I´d rather call it "trolling a forum", in a very lazy way.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Hart makes the claim about physical reality being contingent multiple times, but thus far I haven’t come across any specific support for that assertion other than “something can’t come from nothing,” which is problematic for reasons i mentioned earlier. O
Also, there’s this:

“If it is one’s sordid fate to be an academic philosopher, one might even try to con- vince oneself that the question of existence is an inept or false query generated by the seductions of imprecise grammar, or one might simply adopt the analytic philosopher’s classic gesture of flinging one’s hands haplessly in the air and proclaiming that one simply finds the question entirely unintelligible. All of this, how- ever, is an abdication of the responsibility to think..”

On the contrary, that is a perfectly rational conclusion reached via intellectual honesty and humility regarding the limits of our own capabilities; the possibility that we simply don’t know, and may never know. This uncertainty seems profoundly uncomfortable for Hart as he mentions it as a reason to believe in the supernatural more than a few times in the first hundred pages. Uncomfortable and frustrating though it may be, the unknown does not give us intellectual license to simply make something up simply for the fact that it soothes our curiosity and agitation.

Is properly basic to consider physical reality non-contingent? I am okay with that but IMHO that also is an unsupported opinion. I wonder. How would you falsify this physicalist position?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Is properly basic to consider physical reality non-contingent? I am okay with that but IMHO that also is an unsupported opinion. I wonder. How would you falsify this physicalist position?