What is reason?

[bricklayer]

My mistake then. So, it is "a," then. All human ideas, God having always had them, are presuppositions. This isn't terribly useful, descriptive, or meaningful then.

All ideas are presuppositions, to God, because God's ideas are not intellectual perceptions, they are intellectual conceptions.

Man's ideas are intellectual perceptions, we cannot conceive of anything God hasn't always known.

 

[variant]

The ideas you discribe are intellectual perceptions (a coming to know).
All of God's ideas are intellectual conceptions.

God doesn't enter the equation until we know there is one, therefore, all things known to be known, are known by coming to know.

The first-principles of logic are the ideas that must be employed to be denied.

Any explicit attempt to deny them implicitly affirm them.
They are self-evident.

You are right to observe that all reasoning is presuppositional.
One must employ presuppositional reasoning to deny presuppositional reasoning.

Because God has not chronological sqeuence to His ideas, no intellectual perceptions, all of God's ideas are presuppositions.

I am saying that logic is justified via utility (one can NOT think without it), it needed be externally logically justified.

We can not support any position via irrationality therefore rationality needn't be supported by something other than rationality, or nothing can be supported.

Since it is obviously false that nothing can be supported, rationality is supported in and of itself.

 

[bricklayer]

God doesn't enter the equation until we know there is one, therefore, all things known to be known, are known by coming to know.



I am saying that logic is justified via utility (one can NOT think without it), it needed be externally logically justified.

We can not support any position via irrationality therefore rationality needn't be supported by something other than rationality, or nothing can be supported.

Since it is obviously false that nothing can be supported, rationality is supported in and of itself.

The idea that "God does not enter the equation" until we perceive of Him is erroneous.

Reread my post, you seem to has missed my agreeing that the first-principles of logic are self-evident.
Self-evident means needing no external support.

 

[variant]

The idea that "God does not enter the equation" until we perceive of Him is erroneous.

It is erroneous to mix up the unknown with the known in terms of drawing metaphysical and epistemological conclusions.

Your posts about God are basically just assertions, there is nothing erroneous about dismissing them.

Reread my post, you seem to has missed my agreeing that the first-principles of logic are self-evident.
Self-evident means needing no external support.

I didn't like your wording.

 

[bricklayer]

It is erroneous to mix up the unknown with the known in terms of drawing metaphysical and epistemological conclusions.


All reasoning is pre-suppositional.
One must employ pre-suppositional reasoning to deny pre-suppositional reasoning.
It too is self-evident.

 

[variant]

It is erroneous to mix up the unknown with the known in terms of drawing metaphysical and epistemological conclusions.

All reasoning is pre-suppositional.
One must employ pre-suppositional reasoning to deny pre-suppositional reasoning.
It too is self-evident.

I don't see how that helps your case.

 

[bricklayer]

I don't see how that helps your case.

You seem to believe yourself to be without pre-supposition.

 

[variant]

You seem to believe yourself to be without pre-supposition.

I don't remember claiming anything of the sort.

Care to point it out?

 

[bricklayer]

It is erroneous to mix up the unknown with the known in terms of drawing metaphysical and epistemological conclusions.


I inferred, from this line, that you perceive yourself to be without pre-suppositions (knowns).

 

[variant]

It is erroneous to mix up the unknown with the known in terms of drawing metaphysical and epistemological conclusions.

I inferred, from this line, that you perceive yourself to be without pre-suppositions (knowns).

No that line says that it is erroneous to mix up the known with the unknown when drawing various conclusions. Because we can't draw many conclusions from things we don't know.

Do you think all reasoning is created equal because it entails some pre-supposition? (now you've got me hyphenating it when it doesn't require one)

 

[Chatter]

Can someone define reason and rationality for me?

Why do you want a definition?

Here's one definition of "rational": there's a branch of mathematics called "game theory", where we model people, animals, robots, whatever, as simple computing devices trying to maximise their profits in a world where there is an objective "payoff" for any given action. Now these agents typically find themselves in a world of other agents, and any one agent's profit is actually determined by the joint-action performed by all agents. So if one agent is to determine its expected return, it must try to predict what the other agents are going to be doing.

DEFINITION: We say that the other agents are rational if they are trying to maximise their expected returns.

 

[sandwiches]

All ideas are presuppositions, to God, because God's ideas are not intellectual perceptions, they are intellectual conceptions.

Man's ideas are intellectual perceptions, we cannot conceive of anything God hasn't always known.

As per your claims:

P1. God knows all ideas that could ever exist.
P2. All of God's ideas are pressupositions
P3. All presuppositions are self-evident.

C. All ideas that could ever exist are self-evident.

 

[bricklayer]

As per your claims:

P1. God knows all ideas that could ever exist.
P2. All of God's ideas are pressupositions
P3. All presuppositions are self-evident.

C. All ideas that could ever exist are self-evident.

No where do I affirm that all presupposition are self-evident.
Therefore (C) does not follow.

 

[sandwiches]

No where do I affirm that all presupposition are self-evident.
Therefore (C) does not follow.

Here:

All of God's ideas are presuppositions.

A supposition is that which is held to be self-evident.
A presupposition is supposition that is built upon.

Emphasis mine.

 

[bricklayer]

Here:


Emphasis mine.

None of those three statements equate to all presuppositions being self-evident.
All of God's ideas being presuppositions does not equate to all presuppositions being self-evident.
A supposition being that which is HELD to be self-evident does not equate to all presuppositions being self-evident.
A presupposition being a supposition that is built upon does not equate to all presuppositions being self-evident.

 

[sandwiches]

None of those three statements equate to all presuppositions being self-evident.
All of God's ideas being presuppositions does not equate to all presuppositions being self-evident.
A supposition being that which is HELD to be self-evident does not equate to all presuppositions being self-evident.
A presupposition being a supposition that is built upon does not equate to all presuppositions being self-evident.

Let's look at this again:
P1. God holds all ideas that can be had and knows everything that can ever be known.
P2. All of God's ideas are presuppositions.
P3. A supposition is that which is held to be self-evident.
P4. A presupposition is supposition that is built upon.

So, any idea had by anyone is an idea held by God, which is a presupposition, which is a supposition held to be self-evident. Thus, any idea had by anyone is a supposition held to be self-evident.

There might be an error in logic but I'm just following your premises. I even used YOUR own words in the premises. Care to show me which premise is wrong?

 

[bricklayer]

Let's look at this again:
P1. God holds all ideas that can be had and knows everything that can ever be known.
P2. All of God's ideas are presuppositions.
P3. A supposition is that which is held to be self-evident.
P4. A presupposition is supposition that is built upon.

So, any idea had by anyone is an idea held by God, which is a presupposition, which is a supposition held to be self-evident. Thus, any idea had by anyone is a supposition held to be self-evident.

There might be an error in logic but I'm just following your premises. I even used YOUR own words in the premises. Care to show me which premise is wrong?

Although any idea had by anyone is an idea held by God, and is therefore a presupposition of God's; that does not equate to all presuppositions being self-evident. All of God's presuppositions (ideas) are necessarily self-evident to God, but they are not necesssarily self-evident to man.

Just because man holds a supposition to be self-evident does not make it so; and just because man builds upon a supposition that he holds to be self-evident, that does not make it so.

My premise stands. Your breach in logic was to infer upon man perfection limited to God.

 

[Nooj]

Why do you want a definition?

Here's one definition of "rational": there's a branch of mathematics called "game theory", where we model people, animals, robots, whatever, as simple computing devices trying to maximise their profits in a world where there is an objective "payoff" for any given action. Now these agents typically find themselves in a world of other agents, and any one agent's profit is actually determined by the joint-action performed by all agents. So if one agent is to determine its expected return, it must try to predict what the other agents are going to be doing.

DEFINITION: We say that the other agents are rational if they are trying to maximise their expected returns.

Is this the same definition of rational we should use in human society?

"Reason" and "rationality". (We define words).

The way I tend to use them:

"Rationality" refers to a method: approaching things by means of digital, binary thinking.

I don't understand what you mean by digital and binary. Could you please explain this further?

 

[sandwiches]

Although any idea had by anyone is an idea held by God, and is therefore a presupposition of God's; that does not equate to all presuppositions being self-evident. All of God's presuppositions (ideas) are necessarily self-evident to God, but they are not necesssarily self-evident to man.

Just because man holds a supposition to be self-evident does not make it so; and just because man builds upon a supposition that he holds to be self-evident, that does not make it so.

My premise stands. Your breach in logic was to infer upon man perfection limited to God.

I just remember this thread. I inferred nothing of perfection upon anyone.

So, let's make this easy and point to the premises that YOU established and tell me which one is wrong:
P1. God holds all ideas that can be had and knows everything that can ever be known.
P2. All of God's ideas are presuppositions.
P3. A supposition is that which is held to be self-evident.
P4. A presupposition is supposition that is built upon.