Rationally proving rationality

[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.

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?

If you're going to ignore what I say then there is no point in me responding to you further. I've answered your question and I stand by my 'insults and patronizing' for the reason that I also stated in my previous response.

---

‎"...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?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You can make the definition of rationality whatever you wish, but the statement still stands that it's intued. The definition does not alter the argument in this case, as far as i'm aware.

[Norfolk And Chance]

If you're going to ignore what I say then there is no point in me responding to you further. I've answered your question and I stand by my 'insults and patronizing' for the reason that I also stated in my previous response.

OK insult me all you like, pretend I'm dismissing you all you like (I''m not because I wouldn't have asked you a question regarding your comment if I was), and you haven't answered my question.

You said...

"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?"

My question to that...

"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."

A quick answer, in your own words. Please.

Pretty 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?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

What I'm saying is that your definition of rationality makes no sense.

You can make the definition of rationality whatever you wish, but the statement still stands that it's intued.

I disagree, unless you think "concluding that it has been shown to be the most effective methodology" is intuition.

The definition does not alter the argument in this case, as far as i'm aware.

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?

[Norfolk And Chance]

Where is my answer?

[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.

[Norfolk And Chance]

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.

Could he?

What makes you think he could be among them?

On a separate note, you need a topic certain to not pertain to our universe, reality or dimensions for your assumption that rational thought may not be the best way in that situation. Otherwise it would be a meaningless concept.

[Magicthighs]

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

But it's not intued, according to your definition of rationality. You say rationality means using your brain + input to come to a conclusion. That pretty much describes all experience.

"If I say that something is true simply because its true you cannot negate that statement by saying that its useful therefore its true"

This sentence makes no sense. I'm not replying to the posts about tautologies here, they are completely and utterly irrelevant to our mutual discussion.

"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)."

And again, I disagree. What we have here is a category error. Rationality is a procedure, it just is, there's no truth value attached. It is one of the ways in which we make sense of reality. I'd love to see any [edit: recent] publications by any serious philosophers who claims mere rational thinking offers truths.

"From this then we have to ask how we prove tautology. The answer could be that it is intued to be true"

Or the answer could be "it's worked pretty fucking well so far".

"(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.

Uhuh. Using past experience is intuition. According to which definition, exactly?

You're claiming that inductive reasoning is intuition. You're asking a methodology which makes no absolute truth claims to make an absolute truth claim about itself, and then pretend that that's a profound thought.

Is that really all you've got?

[Norfolk And Chance]

I can't understand why Perhaps wants to argue this "rational thought proves rationality, or does it?" point so relentlessly, unless he plans on going somewhere with it, once he gets acceptance of his idea.

[Magicthighs]

I can't understand why Perhaps wants to argue this "rational thought proves rationality, or does it?" point so relentlessly, unless he plans on going somewhere with it, once he gets acceptance of his idea.

Indeed. What's the point? That we only have tentative knowledge? Well boo-fucking-hoo.

[Norfolk And Chance]

At first I thought he wanted to somehow get people's acceptance that rational thought was no better than irrational thought (not that this would happen in a million years) when discussing stuff - like maybe god. When I suggested it right at the start it was vehemently denied.

Yet the seeds are being planted for just that - as he has basically suggested that maybe rational thought is no use for a topic out of this universe - and when pressed on what this topic could be by me he said "could be god"

Seems to me that he's leading up to exactly what I thought on page 1.

If he isn't, then I cannot fathom the point.