Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The fact that you capitalize "Reason" alone tells me that you are intending to use it in a very special way.No, but Reason based thereon does require true inferences. I direct you to my post 60 in this thread.
Yes, sorry - my bad.No, you have never defined 'rational'.
The definitions I find there don´t postulate a "Rationality"-entity out there. They don´t exclude it either, though - I´ll give you that.Zippy2006 and I both gave the actual dictionary definitions - from Oxford and Mirriam Webster respectively, which fully agrees with the way I have used the term and the implication thereof.
They are just definitions, not the full argument. What do you expect?The definitions I find there don´t postulate a "Rationality"-entity out there. They don´t exclude it either, though - I´ll give you that.
Your whole argument is hinging on insisting on superimposing a definition on a view that doesn´t mean what you mean when saying the word. In order to show an inconsistency in their theory, you would have to apply their terminlogy, not yours.They are just definitions, not the full argument. What do you expect?
...and they postulate something else that fits their view, so they are happy with their explanation.Postulating a Rationality solves the problem and fits my theism, so I am happy with the explanation.
The point, however, is that I don´t see any problem with non(!)-rational processes resulting in consciousness and consequently an interpretation of reality, based on the feedback reality gives us.As you are not a Naturalist, you need not derive rationality from irrational material either,
"Justify rationality" - what does that even mean?nor are you thus obligated to base it on an external Rationality, but then how would you justify rationality otherwise?
Actually, as we are all speaking from the same intellectual tradition, we should all be speaking of the same thing. It is when the inconsistency thereof is pointed out to the Naturalist that he redefines it and then tries to apply it as if he had not.Your whole argument is hinging on insisting on superimposing a definition on a view that doesn´t mean what you mean when saying the word. In order to show an inconsistency in their theory, you would have to apply their terminlogy, not yours.
The point here is that Naturalism negates rationality as it is understood,
...by some non-rationalists.
They aren't postulating anything, but trying to ignore a problem by defining it away....and they postulate something else that fits their view, so they are happy with their explanation.
Neither do I. That is not the problem here. The problem is treating this as anything else than the deterministic phenomena that it would be, akin to kidney function in its 'rationality'.The point, however, is that I don´t see any problem with non(!)-rational processes resulting in consciousness and consequently an interpretation of reality, based on the feedback reality gives us.
No, but if we observe something, then we assume the process exists, yes? If you see something moving fast, you can postulate the abstract Speed."Justify rationality" - what does that even mean?
I mean, I could just make up stuff, just as you do. But this isn´t my modus operandi.
Driving a nail into my arm hurts. I say "This hurts". I do that several times, with the same result. I conclude that this is a reliable pattern. Since I want avoid pain, I conclude that I better abstain from driving nails into my arm. Not sure at which point you expect a justification for the rationality of these observation, experiences, thought processes and conclusions.
As I said before, just as concluding that something moves fast doesn´t require me to believe in the idea of "Speed" pre-existing this event, I don´t see how observing rational processes requires me to believe in the idea of "Rationality" pre-existing this event.
No, obviously we are not.Actually, as we are all speaking from the same intellectual tradition,
I have never seen nor understood "rationality" or "reason" as anything else than a process in the human mind. Your ideas aren´t as common as you like to think.It is when the inconsistency thereof is pointed out to the Naturalist that he redefines it and then tries to apply it as if he had not.
When they don´t postulate anything - how can they possibly even be inconsistent?They aren't postulating anything,
From where I stand it looks more like you are defining the need for "Rationality" (aka "God") into existence.but trying to ignore a problem by defining it away.
And the problem with the coming into being of rationality and reason being deterministic would be what exactly?Neither do I. That is not the problem here. The problem is treating this as anything else than the deterministic phenomena that it would be, akin to kidney function in its 'rationality'.
...you can do whatever you want. The question is: Why would you postulate an entity "Speed" out there in order to conclude that something moves fast?No, but if we observe something, then we assume the process exists, yes? If you see something moving fast, you can postulate the abstract Speed.
Would be nice if you´d try to make your points in complete sentences. The way you talked here, I don´t understand what you were saying.So we see ourselves reason, in fact we create a whole concept of rationality based on it.
Via this, we derive a concept which eventually tells us "oh wait, that reason thingy, not real", thus being incoherent.
I did nothing of that sort, and I don´t need to do anything of that sort.In your weird and circumferential story, it would be as if you concluded that by repetitively driving nails into your arm and experiencing pain, you then somehow construct a system that says you couldn't have been experiencing it or had been unable to drive nails into your arm. You then redefine nail into a spectral entity, and there you go.
My 'Rationality' as a thing 'out-there' is not at all what I am talking about. I did make a suppositional extension later when asked why it mattered, but this was not even close to the main argument of the thread. I actually defined rationality earlier, the plain and simple dictionary definition. You are being very disingenuous here.No, obviously we are not.
E.g. it´s only a fringe tradition in which "Rationality" is capitalized and considered an entity outside the human mind.
I have never seen nor understood "rationality" or "reason" as anything else than a process in the human mind. Your ideas aren´t as common as you like to think.
When they don´t postulate anything - how can they possibly even be inconsistent?
From where I stand it looks more like you are defining the need for "Rationality" (aka "God") into existence.
And the problem with the coming into being of rationality and reason being deterministic would be what exactly?
...you can do whatever you want. The question is: Why would you postulate an entity "Speed" out there in order to conclude that something moves fast?
Would be nice if you´d try to make your points in complete sentences. The way you talked here, I don´t understand what you were saying.
I did nothing of that sort, and I don´t need to do anything of that sort.
Yeah, there is no point in going round in circles.My 'Rationality' as a thing 'out-there' is not at all what I am talking about. I did make a suppositional extension later when asked why it mattered, but this was not even close to the main argument of the thread. I actually defined rationality earlier, the plain and simple dictionary definition. You are being very disingenuous here.
The reason they can't be deterministic, materially-derived and still maintain rationality, is the very Argument from Reason. Please read through the thread again, if you wish to discuss further. I see no need to repeat myself, especcially when someone is clearly neither reading nor attempting to understand what is being said, as your response clearly indicates.
It is therefore involuntary, as the self is as well, a survival mechanism that somehow functions by pretending it isn't.
The fact that living systems interact changes nothing to this fact. If Naturalism is true, we should be able to fully determine what thoughts are occurring or would occur in future, based on observable action of matter, at some point
How can you think this renders such things not fully irrationally derived then?
So yes, you are redefining 'rationality' as merely a product of the brain, similar to the hypoxic drive or pituitary control of homeostasis, which in essence renders its traditional meaning a myth.
Not really. Its a disagreement between Naturalism and the system of Logic that it is supposedly derived by.
Please see the previous posts of the thread.Which system of logic says that a set of individual components, each individually incapable of performing rational thought, can not possibly be arranged in a way to produce a mechanism which does? Please be specific and show the axioms of that system, how those axioms are tested and how the conclusion above is derived.
I did. None of them answer the question I asked.Please see the previous posts of the thread.
I disagree, and I am not about to reargue the entire thread. Please feel free to ask for clarification on specific points.I did. None of them answer the question I asked.
I disagree, and I am not about to reargue the entire thread. Please feel free to ask for clarification on specific points.
You are labouring under a misapprehension here. It is not that a "set of individual components, each individually incapable of performing rational thought, can not possibly be arranged in a way to produce a mechanism which does"
it is that a solely materially-derived component cannot do so, as it would not therefore be capable of rational inference. Perhaps there is a system that allows this, although I am unaware of it, but so far it has not been presented in this thread at all, in any way, shape or form.
It is essentially asking to repeat the thread, yes. So superfluous to the discussion.My question if very specific.
Oh, I was under the impression Naturalism meant the assumption that everything arises from natural properties and causes. If you define it differently, then we are at cross purposes.It is if you actually want to discuss what actual naturalists actually believe.
No, I was saying by the meaning of characteristics of all logical systems such as validity, soundness, completeness, consistency, etc., Naturalism renders itself unable to be shown sound or valid - if accepted it does the same for all human knowledge, upon which of course it is based. So by accepting Naturalism, you accept inherently a system that therefore has no valid support anymore, and in this manner it becomes inconsistent. I am not retreating to any 'weaker' claim; for in a debate, you give your opponents a chance to respond, which I am extending here. I am merely asking for any method by which Naturalists could save their floundering, irrational system; and stating that I have never seen one presented.I'm pretty sure you were saying you were aware of a system of logic which contradicted naturalism. Now, when pressed, you seem to be retreating to a much weaker claim - that you aren't sure if there are systems which are compatible with it.
It is essentially asking to repeat the thread, yes. So superfluous to the discussion.
Oh, I was under the impression Naturalism meant the assumption that everything arises from natural properties and causes. If you define it differently, then we are at cross purposes.
No, I was saying by the meaning of characteristics of all logical systems such as validity, soundness, completeness, consistency, etc., Naturalism renders itself unable to be shown sound or valid
So by accepting Naturalism, you accept inherently a system that therefore has no valid support anymore
I am not dodging anything. By the systems of Formal and Informal Logic, it lies prostate. It has been answered ad nauseam. In the post you quoted, I was referring back to my argument since my first post and therein lies your answer.Nope, it was asking to clarify exactly what you were talking about in a specific post. The continual dodging of the question tells me quite a lot.
It is implied by your answer in post 155: For you denied you were labouring under a misapprehension when I added the necessary statement 'materially-derived', to make such a proposition refer to Naturalism.Where did I define it differently?
So tell me how would you judge Naturalism then, without logic? By the dictionary definition, it is then anyway no longer rational - which is the point.That's not true. There are many other ways to judge epistemological choices other than logical deductions. Until you can prove that your particular approach is the correct one, I see no reason to grant you that assumption.
I am not dodging anything. By the systems of Formal and Informal Logic, it lies prostate.
So tell me how would you judge Naturalism then, without logic? By the dictionary definition, it is then anyway no longer rational - which is the point.
It is formal logic itself, as well as informal logic at play. I don't understand what you are getting at, for clearly you don't understand what logic means. Logic is the systematic exposition of valid arguments. The argument can be framed in Philosophic Logic, which is how it was done in the OP, it can be expressed by predicate logic or propositional logic or syllogistic logic.Nice rhetoric, but you still haven't names a specific formal logical system you're discussing nor have you listed the axioms you're working from nor have you shown how this supposed proof works. That's pretty telling.
You are adding terms or leaving them out as you see fit. Here you added 'pure'. I have explained this in the previous post. There are no valid epistemological views that are not based on logic, as 'valid' is a term of logic and can only be determined thereby.Doesn't answer my question. Please demonstrate your claim that pure logic is the only way to validate epistemological views.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?