Why Listen to Reason?

[Ken-1122]

I mean, srsly.

But WAIT!

Before you respond, know that a response is giving a reason, which is begging the question.

So...

What's the deal with that? Seems like reason rests on arational (or irrational) foundations.

There is nothing wrong with using reason to justify reason.
Reason is only effective when both parties are reasonable. If one party is unreasonable; you will be unable to reason with him and the discussion is usually over at that point.

Ken

Ken

 

[Received]

The statement "you can't rely on your reason because it requires reason" reminds me of what creationists say after you've intellectually cornered them.

It's kind of like the "nuclear button" that you press when all else fails. If you can't win the argument just blow the whole thing up but saying "well you can't rely on your brain to tell you about reality anyway!"

Boom! All the arguments and facts go out the window once you press the "you can't KNOW anything" button.

Just read my sig for proof of this tactic... lol

Well, there are all sorts of basic philosophical problems we gloss over in faith-like (I mean "faith" literally, i.e., trust that something is the case without rational justification) manners on a daily basis. Creationism is pretty lacking in credibility for running with this to the conclusion "therefore God" from "we can't know anything".

Oh well for them. My point doesn't have anything at all to do with God.

 

[Received]

All it can tell us how we can meaningfully relate to our perceptions (in which "perceptions" is a tad presumptious, since we can not even reliably tell whether our sense tell us something about a world out there or about themselves) . And that´s all that´s relevant, anyway.
Anyway, I´d agree with your statement that "knowledge" always describes as something "is to me/us". However, the differences between "me" and "us" seem to be swept under the carpet in Aquina´s idea of knowledge/truth. We often simply assume that others perceive (for lack of a better word) in the same way we do, and oftentimes when it turns out people perceive differently (particularly when they are a small minority, and when their perception threatens the worldview that we have constructed for ourselves) are dismissed as crazy or ill.
Even if we let go the idea of "objectivity" - the concepts of "knowledge" and "truth" traditionally signify something more than "how the world is to me". Actually, their very purpose is to differenciate between "correct" and "incorrect" impressions.
From your paragraph above I can´t know what criteria you use for making this distinction.
As far as I am concerned, I am convinced that it´s all a matter of finding basic common ground from which we can come to agreements on the details. What each of us expects to be accepted as common ground is taken naturally or from social and cultural experience (or, if you prefer your religious terminology, on "faith"). Which means that anyone can come at any time and question it - without me or you being able to justify it.

Goodness, these are awesome thoughts.

And this leads me to the very reason I take issue with your OP: By questioning that which (demonstrably - see the "paradox" you admit) is a shared reality between you and me (i.e. that reason needs to be employed when comparing our views) you are going the opposite way: You don´t embrace our common ground, you are destroying our reality. Now, as I said above, you can do that, and you can do it any time. The question, however, is: Why would you do that - particularly when it is about something that is so axiomatic to yourself that you can´t question it without the question becoming a paradox? Each of your posts breathes the attempt to employ reason and demands reason from those responding. And that´s the very assumed common ground that brings people together in a philosophy forum.

And I guess my response should be: If you don´t want reason to be our common ground, offer something else.

But I'm not going against the common ground *entirely*; just admitting, through a type of (hopefully) reductio ad absurdum point (see the logical stuff above) that reason has limitations. I agree that my attempt to point out reason being unquestionable itself involves a sort of reasoned attempt to point this out: I'm giving reasons when I say that reasoning is unquestionable. But not quite that. I'm saying that:

1) Using reason when questioning reason is begging the question (I'm still waiting for a response from anyone on this);
2) However, I can't point out question begging without using reason;
3) Therefore, using reason when questioning reason is fallacious, BUT ALSO rational, in that
Premise (1) is true, and premise (2) is also true.

Contradiction, ergo reductio ad absurdum, ergo this "tells us" (in intuitive, non-rationally mediated ways) that there is some type of limitation with reason -- and this very conclusion invites the same circular problem, because I'm using reason to make this claim, but this is still contradictory because using a reason to answer whether reason should be listened to is question begging. It's an infinite loop, but I think the loop tells us something in non-rational, intuitive language. It's not my misuse of language, or being inconsistent with using reason or anything related to this. It's much like making a statement "This statement is true," and saying "the last statement is false." Logically there isn't anything wrong with any of these statements; it's just that when you put them together you've reached an impasse with logic itself, logic's very limitation for us. Likewise with reasoning as I'm using it. Or so I think.

(Assuming that this is not another mindless Elionai-style attempt of pointing out a self-contradiction by means of imposing a statement upon itself - which, to be honest, annoys me to no end; and assuming you are really interested in the frame of reference of *this particular statement* - for whatever reason. And I am fully aware that with any response you could ask the same question again, ad infinitum):
I don´t know, and I misspoke: There´s not only one frame of reference to any statement, but a whole bunch of them. That there are doesn´t mean we are necessarily aware of them (all). In my opinion this is one of the purposes of discussions: we get the opportunity to get aware of the frames of reference to our statements - when somebody else disagrees with them.
When we disagree there are basically two options
a. We share the frames of reference in which this statement is made (i.e. the statement is indeed that which we disagree upon), or
b. our disagreement is caused the our frames of reference are not the same (i.e. the disagreement lies deeper).
b, sadly, is often not taken into consideration in these discussions. People keep banging their heads discussing a particular statement when actually the problem is that the assumed common ground isn´t there.

Ok, if you want to hear one frame of reference in which my statement has been made: reason. I do know that per your OP you have cancelled reason as the common ground for these discussions - but then you haven´t offered anything to replace it by.




And what does it tell us?
The fact that whatever system can not justify itself by means of this very system is not nonsense, it´s not contradiction, it´s not a paradox) - it´s banal and trivial, it´s a given. You can take any philosophical or epistemological approach and deconstruct it that way.

The interesting question, however: Why do people who usually feel very comfortable with such agreed realities suddenly and at some particular point discover this deconstructive approach as a their prefered tool?



No, primarily I am engaging in arguments out of the hope that I find out about the frames of reference that are required to render certain - to me completely outlandish or often even unintelligible - statements and ideas meaningful, intelligible and (from within that frame of reference) logical and reasonable. I am interested in people and how their minds work.
Or, to put it differently: I am engaging in these arguments out of the hope that there is still some common ground/shared frame of reference.

quatona, I responded from the hip from an intuitive sense of difficulty accepting your original claim. What I'm saying below can be seen as a thought experiment. I see it this way:

1) If every statement we make reflects a frame of reference (or a lot of frame of references), then
2) The statement "every statement we make reflects frames of reference" is itself made from a frame of reference, and so
3) The statement "the statement 'every statement we make reflects frames of reference' is itself made from a frame of reference" is itself made from a frame of reference
4) That is, this invites an infinite regress of frames of references
5) Infinite regresses can't exist in actuality (i.e., an actual infinite), therefore a starting point is needed, which means
6) The claim that every statement we make reflects a frame of reference must be false, therefore
7) Not every statement we make reflects a frame of reference: there must be a "frameless" beginning or something of that sort somewhere (whatever that is).

 

[quatona]

Goodness, these are awesome thoughts.



But I'm not going against the common ground *entirely*; just admitting, through a type of (hopefully) reductio ad absurdum point (see the logical stuff above) that reason has limitations.

Ok - apart from the purely academic, abstract limitation of being not justifiable by itself (which would be a common trait to any approach - a logical problem common to all systems): Where do you see those limitations? Where do they affect you so that you are tempted to question the validity and usability of this system? What (in order to apply your own criteria) are the occasions when a well reasoned conclusion makes you unhappy? (And I mean: in real life - not when imposing abstract systems upon themselves or something like that?

I agree that my attempt to point out reason being unquestionable itself involves a sort of reasoned attempt to point this out: I'm giving reasons when I say that reasoning is unquestionable. But not quite that. I'm saying that:

1) Using reason when questioning reason is begging the question (I'm still waiting for a response from anyone on this);

Really? I was under the impression that all my responses circled around confirming this very point.
And there´s your problem: While someone using reason to justify reason is (while begging the question) is at least consistent, you are begging the question plus are inconsistent.
2) However, I can't point out question begging without using reason;
3) Therefore, using reason when questioning reason is fallacious, BUT ALSO rational, in that
Premise (1) is true, and premise (2) is also true.[/quote]
Maybe it got lost in my ramblings - but what I am trying to say all the time:
You will always get this problem when you demand that a system can justify itself by self-reference. You will get it with reason, you will get it with logic, you will get it with intuition - and with "faith" anyway. It´s a systemic problem.

Contradiction, ergo reductio ad absurdum, ergo this "tells us" (in intuitive, non-rationally mediated ways) that there is some type of limitation with reason -- and this very conclusion invites the same circular problem, because I'm using reason to make this claim, but this is still contradictory because using a reason to answer whether reason should be listened to is question begging. It's an infinite loop, but I think the loop tells us something in non-rational, intuitive language.

Except that your appeal to "intuition" suffers from the same problem, once your demand for self-referential justification is applied.
But I have asked you before, and I am honestly interested in hearing your response: What does it tell you (apart from useless academic and trivial issues common to any system and approach)?

It's not my misuse of language, or being inconsistent with using reason or anything related to this. It's much like making a statement "This statement is true," and saying "the last statement is false." Logically there isn't anything wrong with any of these statements; it's just that when you put them together you've reached an impasse with logic itself, logic's very limitation for us. Likewise with reasoning as I'm using it. Or so I think.

Yes, I guess that´s how we came up with the concept axiom: We can´t do without it. If you can´t question logic without employing logic (or without being offering something better for an alternative) you have found out why logic is axiomatic. Likewise with reasoning. Or so I think.

quatona, I responded from the hip from an intuitive sense of difficulty accepting your original claim.

To be honest, I think it´s not an "intuitive sense", but an entirely academic, abstract point.

What I'm saying below can be seen as a thought experiment. I see it this way:

1) If every statement we make reflects a frame of reference (or a lot of frame of references), then
2) The statement "every statement we make reflects frames of reference" is itself made from a frame of reference, and so
3) The statement "the statement 'every statement we make reflects frames of reference' is itself made from a frame of reference" is itself made from a frame of reference

With you so far.

4) That is, this invites an infinite regress of frames of references

Lost you. A frame of reference needn´t be a statement.

5) Infinite regresses can't exist in actuality (i.e., an actual infinite), therefore a starting point is needed,

Yes, of course there´s always a starting point which is the frame of reference to all statement we make. Your eagerness to point out self-contradictions (I really don´t know what it is with this new found passion of yours ), however, has blinded you for the fact that a frame of reference needn´t be a statement.
which means

6) The claim that every statement we make reflects a frame of reference must be false,

Not unless you assume that a frame of reference must be a statement (which certainly would be far from what I am trying to get across=

therefore
7) Not every statement we make reflects a frame of reference:

Yes, it does.

there must be a "frameless" beginning or something of that sort somewhere (whatever that is).

Exactly. This "frameless" frame of reference is what lies at the core of all our rationalizations. I suspect, though, that it is not intelligible to ourselves - or, better: It´s hiding very carefully. No system can identify and/or understand its own nature.

But I am trying to give you reasonable thoughts, and am thereby opening myself up to being accused of begging the question.
Maybe I should just pile fallacy upon fallacy instead - in order to remind you of your own undisposable appreciation of reason - by which OTOH I would open myself up to being accused of talking nonsense.

You have created a loss- loss situation - not only for your conversation partners, but even more for yourself. My "intuition" tells me that that´s not a particularly creative, productive, constructive way to go.

 

[Received]

In a strange way I sense you're agreeing with what I'm getting at -- that all systems can't justify themselves -- but adding disagreements on the side that needn't be there. But let me come back to half of your post only after getting to the essential stuff that I think we're disagreeing on:

Yes, logical systems can't justify themselves. My appeal go the 1-2-3 logical stuff is making that point *logically*, instead of just saying "all systems are self-contradictory" -- a statement that needs to be backed up. It's as if (to me) you're agreeing with my conclusion but attempting to shoot down the logic behind it.

Ok - apart from the purely academic, abstract limitation of being not justifiable by itself (which would be a common trait to any approach - a logical problem common to all systems): Where do you see those limitations? Where do they affect you so that you are tempted to question the validity and usability of this system? What (in order to apply your own criteria) are the occasions when a well reasoned conclusion makes you unhappy? (And I mean: in real life - not when imposing abstract systems upon themselves or something like that?

I don't understand what you mean when you say "purely academic, abstract limitation." These "academic" thoughts have direct consequences upon our interactions with the real world: e.g., if a person "knows" through this weird reductio ad absurdum logic that (as you agree with, sans my reasoning behind it) systems are self-contradictory, then this could easily add humility and wonder to those think that reason is a panacea and end-all goal for basically everything. At the same time, consider the very *wording* of the OP: it's meant as a type of thought experiment, but with a deeper point, and I don't think dividing the world into "academic" and "non-academic" is answering anything.

And I'd say this with the "scienticist" folk in mind: you know, the people who say that "everything that can be known can be known through science" -- a statement that's self-negating because you can't know science with this standard. I'm just pushing it to reason -- maybe from a "hope" to deflate reason as some magical end-all deal, as many rationalists and budding thinkers are often prone to holding implicitly or explicitly. IOW, there's something humbling *and* liberating about knowing, as you say, that systems are self-contradictory. This means that our systems are based in something more than themselves: which goes back to intuition, axiomatic stuff, etc.

And there´s your problem: While someone using reason to justify reason is (while begging the question) is at least consistent, you are begging the question plus are inconsistent.

And...I've admitted openly to begging the question (see the logical ramblings), but I fail to see how I'm being inconsistent. I've said there's a reductio ad absurdum type of contradiction between the logical conclusions of "using reason when questioning reason is begging the question" and "I'm pointing out this by using reason, and so begging the question." It's not *me* being inconsistent, but the *very nature of the self-contradictory nature of the systems you're talking about* that has a sort of inherent inconsistency.

Exactly. This "frameless" frame of reference is what lies at the core of all our rationalizations. I suspect, though, that it is not intelligible to ourselves - or, better: It´s hiding very carefully. No system can identify and/or understand its own nature.

But I am trying to give you reasonable thoughts, and am thereby opening myself up to being accused of begging the question.
Maybe I should just pile fallacy upon fallacy instead - in order to remind you of your own undisposable appreciation of reason - by which OTOH I would open myself up to being accused of talking nonsense.

You have created a loss- loss situation - not only for your conversation partners, but even more for yourself. My "intuition" tells me that that´s not a particularly creative, productive, constructive way to go.

I haven't created a loss-loss situation; I'm revealing the loss-loss nature of the limitations of reason and by extension any system. The fault lies in the stars, dear Brutus...I'm just (trying) to point out how the stars are out of whack by revealing the contradictory nature of the stars, which means in this case that this necessarily involved contradictory conclusions: again, "using reason when questioning reason is begging the question" and "I'm pointing out this by using reason, and so begging the question."

And I do think this is a useful thing to think about (although, remember, the OP was intended as a thought experiment), given that it's revealing the reasons behind (or if you prefer, "reasons" behind) the limitation of reason rather than just saying that systems are self-contradictory.

 

[quatona]

In a strange way I sense you're agreeing with what I'm getting at -- that all systems can't justify themselves -- but adding disagreements on the side that needn't be there.

Of course we agree on that.
However, whether it´s you or me who adds some unnecessary disagreement is a matter of perspective.
I just don´t know why
a. you make such a fuzz about an actually trivial fact, and
b. why you are singling out "reason" of all systems.
But let me come back to half of your post only after getting to the essential stuff that I think we're disagreeing on:

Yes, logical systems can't justify themselves. My appeal go the 1-2-3 logical stuff is making that point *logically*, instead of just saying "all systems are self-contradictory" -- a statement that needs to be backed up. It's as if (to me) you're agreeing with my conclusion but attempting to shoot down the logic behind it.

No, I am not shooting down the logic behind it. If I would accept your premise there wouldn´t even be any need to shoot down the logic behind it - because you would have already established that logic is not the appropriate criterium to approach the issue.

What I am saying is: If by all means you want to do away with the validity of axioms that you and I are demonstrably unable to do without (you can´t question reason without employing reason, and I can´t justify reason by means of using reason) you are creating an impassé.

Reason is (just like any system) a system that can´t justify itself. So what? Demonstrable fact is that we can´t do without it, and that you don´t have
a. anything to offer that wouldn´t suffer from the same "problem", and
b. would prove as demonstrably axiomatic as reason.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "purely academic, abstract limitation." These "academic" thoughts have direct consequences upon our interactions with the real world: e.g., if a person "knows" through this weird reductio ad absurdum logic that (as you agree with, sans my reasoning behind it) systems are self-contradictory

Allow me to interrupt you here for correctness´sake:
Being unable to justify itself by itself is not the same as being "self-contradictory" (the opposite - i.e. what you are doing - is self-contradictory: using the means of the system to deconstruct it). But that just as a side-note.

, then this could easily add humility and wonder to those think that reason is a panacea and end-all goal for basically everything.

Reason being an end goal? Who would be so stupid to believe that? Reason is a tool. That a screw driver is not the appropriate tool to create or fix a screw driver may be regrettable, it may be (by virtue of your demand) lead to an infinite regress or whatever), but it´s not a logical problem.

And let me remind you that the OP question was not "Why consider reason the end-goal for basically everything?" (which, btw., is nonsense, because an end goal is, by definition not "for" anything, but everything is for the end goal) but "why listen to reason?". You have raised the bar quite a bit since, haven´t you?

At the same time, consider the very *wording* of the OP: it's meant as a type of thought experiment, but with a deeper point, and I don't think dividing the world into "academic" and "non-academic" is answering anything.

What I mean by "purely academic" is: I can´t use it for anything, and the problem it creates have no reflection in my life. Since reason is (as both your and my approach confirm here time and again) axiomatic, undisposable, and inevitable when it comes to creating concepts, having a conceptual discussion about its value for conceptual discussions is just a moot point.

And I'd say this with the "scienticist" folk in mind: you know, the people who say that "everything that can be known can be known through science" -- a statement that's self-negating because you can't know science with this standard.

Well, I am not a "scienticist" folk myself, and I´d prefer to have them defend themselves - but as far as I am familiar with their line of reasoning they don´t say "everything" (as in "everything" - including science itself).
I mean, these guys are not idiots.

I'm just pushing it to reason -- maybe from a "hope" to deflate reason as some magical end-all deal, as many rationalists and budding thinkers are often prone to holding implicitly or explicitly.

Well, I am not one of them - so apparently I am not part of the target group.

But just another thought: If I remember correctly, you are in the helping/conselling business, correct? Do you think it is a good idea to simply deflate someone else´s most dear ideas? Isn´t that merely destructive? Don´t you - instead - try to seduce people by offering a more beautiful approach?

IOW, there's something humbling *and* liberating about knowing, as you say, that systems are self-contradictory.

Again, just to clarify: I neither said nor meant to say that systems are "self-contradictory".
I do not really know what would be humbling and liberating about knowing such obvious and trivial facts that no system can justify itself by its own means.

This means that our systems are based in something more than themselves: which goes back to intuition, axiomatic stuff, etc.

Well, firstly reason is axiomatic (as the logical problem of being unable to tackle it without employing it clearly shows).
Secondly, every other axiom or system (intuition, faith, whathaveyou) comes with the same problem. So there.

And...I've admitted openly to begging the question (see the logical ramblings), but I fail to see how I'm being inconsistent. I've said there's a reductio ad absurdum type of contradiction between the logical conclusions of "using reason when questioning reason is begging the question" and "I'm pointing out this by using reason, and so begging the question." It's not *me* being inconsistent, but the *very nature of the self-contradictory nature of the systems you're talking about* that has a sort of inherent inconsistency.

No, it´s your unfounded expectation (namely that a system should be able to justify itself by its own means - an expectation for which there is no rational nor logical basis) that creates an inconsistency between your expectations and the system in question.

I haven't created a loss-loss situation; I'm revealing the loss-loss nature of the limitations of reason and by extension any system. The fault lies in the stars, dear Brutus...

No, the "fault" lies in your unfounded expectations.

And I do think this is a useful thing to think about (although, remember, the OP was intended as a thought experiment), given that it's revealing the reasons behind (or if you prefer, "reasons" behind) the limitation of reason rather than just saying that systems are self-contradictory.

Again: I am not saying that systems are self-contradictory. You seem to be superimposing your expectations upon my statement here.

But whatever. If this is such a great discovery for you - enjoy it!
And feel invited to talk about the beauty you see in it, and how it increases your happiness.

 

[Non sequitur]

reason is a subjective capacity and just because you have much or little of it does not mean you contain the whole of reality inside of your understanding. mankind trys to find or disprove God from the bottom up, it is quit an insult really. it is like an ant proclaiming there are no black holes because all of reality is the ant hole and the few other places he has seen. and the highest thing there is, is sugar,...because he likes how it taste and it feeds him well, and it feeds his queen.

Or like an assumptive analogy that is flawed.

 

[Received]

Okay, quatona, let me summarize for the moment before I come back later:

You're too reasonable about reason, and that's "causing" you to think this a trivial thing. You know, lots of people aren't like you, and think reason is basically a deity. It's them that need the logic, not you.

IOW, be less smart and you'd see what I'm talking about.

 

[Gottservant]

There is nothing wrong with using reason to justify reason.

Ken

I concur with this.

Reason is its own justification, if you don't believe that, you are being unreasonable.

I think you need to distinguish between strong and weak reasons, too. Reason for its own sake is weak, but weak reason combined with other reasons is strong. So it is not necessary to give a perfect answer for why we rely on reason or conjecture, only that our reason accords with other reasons.

It is not necessary to contradict yourself if you say you believe in reason for its own sake, you are merely giving a weak reason, that can easily be supported by other reasons, once it has been shown that you are reasonable.

Even begging the question is valid, if no question exists without it (otherwise).