Rationally proving rationality

[Perhaps]

I've come across a very powerful and perplexing quote recently which stated:

‎"...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."

If this statement is correct then there exists no grounds to say that thinking irrationally - or any method of thought other than rational - is not only possible, but allowable in the context of thought and feeling.

If this deduction can be made then the common argument against the irrationality of God becomes moot. I'd be interested in hearing other's opinions on the topic as I'm still very much confused as to my stance.

[frankiej]

Philosophical bollocks, in my opinion

[Norfolk And Chance]

Philosobabble causes people to claim they can't know that the tooth fairy is made up.

[Perhaps]

Perhaps there is an importance of such "philosobabble". Without understanding why we understand or what we understand, we can't truly understand. Understand?

Ill-humored jokes aside, my purpose in posting this thread is to have the audience rationally prove to themselves that rationality is the correct way to think about things. In my experience, it can't be done because of subjective opinion leading to perceived superiority. But once again, I'm more interested in other's opinions as opposed to my own.

Thanks for the replies though.

[reverendjeremiah]

I adhere to Absurdism.

the human in and of itself is not absurd. The cosmos in and of itself is not absurd. Once you mix them together is when the absurdity become apparent.

We are human in a non-human cosmos. We are thinking and caring beings in a cold, dark universe.

Many people cannot handle the duality of the absurd, so they actually convince themselves that they are special, in a special time, in a special place...as opposed to being just another human in a violent and changing universe.

The absurd is clarified from the intent of the viewer, and even the most rational and logical of us can fall prey to it. A good exaple lies in the Discordian "law of fives"

- "All things happen in fives, or are divisible by or are multiples of five, or are somehow directly or indirectly appropriate to 5 The Law of Fives is never wrong."

the law of fives is a humorous way to explain that intent in that the creator of it specified: "I find the Law of Fives to be more and more manifest the harder I look."

Another way of looking at the Law of Fives is as a symbol for the observation of reality changing that which is being observed in the observer's mind. Just as how when one looks for fives in reality, one finds them, so will one find conspiracies, ways to determine when the apocalypse will come, and so on and so forth when one decides to look for them. It cannot be proven wrong, because it proves itself reflexively when looked at through this lens.

At its basic level, the Law of Fives is a practical demonstration that perception is intent-sensitive; that is, the perceiver's intentions inform the perception. To whatever extent one considers that perception is identical with reality, then, it has the corollary that reality is intent-sensitive.

The Law of Fives is related to the significance of the number 23 and the 23 Enigma in the Illuminatus!-trilogy, as 2 plus 3 equals 5.

[Perhaps]

I agree with you're post completely, but I think that what must be realized is just as perception is intent-sensitive, so is thought process.

Those who think rationally view their method of thought as correct and superior because it is intent-sensitive. It cannot itself be proven except with the use of rational thought.

[Epimethean]

Deconstructionism, when it gets us to the point of abandoning productive thought and reasoning patterns-or at least, when it tempts us to do so, is disturbing evidence for man's need to de-understand in order to preserve mystery.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I agree with you're post completely, but I think that what must be realized is just as perception is intent-sensitive, so is thought process.

Those who think rationally view their method of thought as correct and superior because it is intent-sensitive. It cannot itself be proven except with the use of rational thought.

So this means God is real, right?

Lets just get down to business.

[Perhaps]

I agree with you're post completely, but I think that what must be realized is just as perception is intent-sensitive, so is thought process.

Those who think rationally view their method of thought as correct and superior because it is intent-sensitive. It cannot itself be proven except with the use of rational thought.

So this means God is real, right?

Lets just get down to business.

My intention isn't to discuss God.

My intention is to discuss the subjectivity of thought. Deductive conclusions mean nothing if they aren't objective. My stance doesn't support either side of the argument.

I'm really looking for someone to answer the initial question. Is it possible to rationally prove that rationality is the best thought process?

Sorry to confuse. It wasn't my intention.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I agree with you're post completely, but I think that what must be realized is just as perception is intent-sensitive, so is thought process.

Those who think rationally view their method of thought as correct and superior because it is intent-sensitive. It cannot itself be proven except with the use of rational thought.

So this means God is real, right?

Lets just get down to business.

My intention isn't to discuss God.

My intention is to discuss the subjectivity of thought. Deductive conclusions mean nothing if they aren't objective. My stance doesn't support either side of the argument.

I'm really looking for someone to answer the initial question. Is it possible to rationally prove that rationality is the best thought process?

Sorry to confuse. It wasn't my intention.

I can't even understand what you are trying to say, tbh.

Although I'd suggest you must have a motive to moot that rational thought is no better than irrational thought or whatever it is that you're talking about.

Further from that I'd deduce the motive would be...oooooh I dunno... backing up irrational arguments for deities - you are open minded after all.