Rationally proving rationality

[genkaus]

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.

The justification is the refutation.

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".

This statement falls apart if a reason is provided or if it is shown to be non-intuitive otherwise, such as true by tautology.

For example, is the knowledge "All bachelors are unmarried" intuitive? That is, would you say that this knowledge is without reason or you know of no reason but you know it to be true anyway? This statement is tautologically true, i.e. true by definition. It doesn't need to be intued.

Similarly, consider "Reason is the way to gain knowledge about reality". Process of identification of facts about reality and making conclusions on them is what reason is. Knowledge is familiarity with those facts. They are two parts of the same process.

[houseofcantor]

If this statement is correct

then there exists no grounds to say that thinking irrationally /is not / allowable

You gotta watch those if/then loops - you don't want a halting problem. Note that this is a moral concern, not a logical one. Here's this idiot in love with Gwyneth Paltrow - that's irrational - but the naive philosophy being forwarded is sound; in that Reason is axiomatic.

This if/then loop is a "whole number consideration being applied to faction of fractions," whereas truth in philosophy is foundational. From truth, schools of philosophy and naive philosophers; and both of those branches tend to grow out "over the water," so to speak. But truth is a self-contained renormalizer. Don't sweat the decimals; they'll get rounded out.

[tackattack]

---

Once again, the same could be said about any type of thought. Just because it 'proves' itself doesn't mean it's the best or most objective. I could easily exchange the words rationally with irrationally and rational with irrational into the same quote and it works perfectly.

Okay, this part makes no sense. For something to be the best there must be some objective standard to measure it by. If we are talking about this world here, the standard would be correspondence to reality.
The term "most objective" is similarly senseless. Something is objective if it is based on reality and independent of a person's mind. Something that is objective, like rationality, is automatically the best way to gain knowledge about reality.

---

Not going back too far into the conversation just thought I'd comment on the few things I've read so far, particularly quoted above. "Best" is not a statement of the degree of quality of a statement, "best" is a sum of the most useful. I agree that objectifialbe things are better than subjective things in most instances. It's not because they're more based in reality, but more useful in my percieved reality. I think that's an important distinction. I also don't think "objective" or "rational" necessitates a correlation to reality although they are often related. I believe objective reality is more useful than someone's personal reality only as far as that objective reality applies to the usefullness of my life seen through my subjective reality.

[Magicthighs]

‎"...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."

Please define rationality.

[genkaus]

Not going back too far into the conversation just thought I'd comment on the few things I've read so far, particularly quoted above. "Best" is not a statement of the degree of quality of a statement, "best" is a sum of the most useful.

"Best" is simply the superlative form of "good".
Something is good if it conforms to a particular standard. The thing that conforms the closest is the best. The best student in the class is not the same as the most useful.
Utility has little to do with it, unless the standard itself requires some sort of purpose.

I agree that objectifialbe things are better than subjective things in most instances. It's not because they're more based in reality, but more useful in my percieved reality.

Actually, the "objectifiable" would be useful in your "perceived reality" if your "perceived reality" is same as or as close to actual reality as possible.
This is why science is so often at odds with religion, since science is based on reality and is objective, whereas the "perceived reality" of religious people is far from actual reality.

I think that's an important distinction. I also don't think "objective" or "rational" necessitates a correlation to reality although they are often related.

Yes it does. Objective means independence from subjective perception. How does that not necessitate a correlation with reality?

I believe objective reality is more useful than someone's personal reality only as far as that objective reality applies to the usefullness of my life seen through my subjective reality.

"Subjective reality" is a contradiction in terms. Reality is something that exists independent of your subjective perception.

Here, you seem to have things backwards. It is not objective reality that must conform to to your subjective reality or prove itself useful. If your "perceived reality" does not conform to "objective reality" (I really hate that term - its redundant), then reason and rationality would be of no use to you. But the objective reality wouldn't just go away, you would.

[Perhaps]

"The justification is the refutation."

- No it's not. You can't refute the statement that it is intued by stating a justification for why it is helpful.

"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". "

- Yes, that is the basic argument.

"This statement falls apart if a reason is provided or if it is shown to be non-intuitive otherwise, such as true by tautology."

- It only falls apart if you show that it is non-intuitive, providing a reason for its usefulness does not negate the statement.

"For example, is the knowledge "All bachelors are unmarried" intuitive? That is, would you say that this knowledge is without reason or you know of no reason but you know it to be true anyway? This statement is tautologically true, i.e. true by definition. It doesn't need to be intued.

Similarly, consider "Reason is the way to gain knowledge about reality". Process of identification of facts about reality and making conclusions on them is what reason is. Knowledge is familiarity with those facts. They are two parts of the same process. "

- 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.

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.

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.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Genkaus has answered everything you have pondered, more than satisfactorily - IMO.

By the way, what topic would you approach that is not of this Universe, reality or dimensions? A simple sentence should suffice as an answer to that query.

[Perhaps]

Genkaus has answered everything you have pondered, more than satisfactorily - IMO.

By the way, what topic would you approach that is not of this Universe, reality or dimensions? A simple sentence should suffice as an answer to that query.

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 you simply dismiss an argument because it proposes God then you are naive and ignorant. You become the equivalent to any who do the same but with an opposite position. An open mind is necessary if you are ever to grow as an intellectual.

---

‎"...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."

Please define rationality.

Rationality - the state or quality of being rational.
Rational - Having or exercising reason.
Reason - the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences [based upon observations].

[Norfolk And Chance]

Genkaus has answered everything you have pondered, more than satisfactorily - IMO.

By the way, what topic would you approach that is not of this Universe, reality or dimensions? A simple sentence should suffice as an answer to that query.

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 you simply dismiss an argument because it proposes God then you are naive and ignorant. You become the equivalent to any who do the same but with an opposite position. An open mind is necessary if you are ever to grow as an intellectual.

Just quit with the insults and patronisation right now.

I asked the question for a reason, because I want an answer. Nowhere have I said in that last post that "I feel any way" or dismissed anything.

I said a) I agree with genkaun - this should not be a problem to you seeing as though you're so open minded and open to dialogue?, and b) "By the way, what topic would you approach that is not of this Universe, reality or dimensions?" - I ask you this again. Once again, I asked you this question for a reason.

All I need is a simple answer as to what you think. Not a paragraph ignoring the question and patronising me.

Can you answer please?

[Magicthighs]

‎"...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."

Please define rationality.

Rationality - the state or quality of being rational.
Rational - Having or exercising reason.

Okay so far, if that's what you're intending rationality to mean.

Reason - the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences [based upon observations].

Seems like you just went to dictionary.com and tacked "[based upon observations]" at the end of entry 3. Problem is, even by tacking on that bit, you're including reasons like "the voices told me to do it" and "I saw it in a vision". Even creationists base their claims on observations.

All you're saying here is that rationality means the state of using your mind to form conclusions, judgments or inferences [based on observations]. Do you know of any other ways to form conclusions, judgments or inferences?