Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Christopher's Anti-Rationalist Beliefs

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,072
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Christopher's Anti-Rationalist Beliefs

    1) There is no such thing as self-evidence. Self-evidence is a nice way of saying circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a negative way of saying self-evident.

    2) Logical conclusions are only true if the premises are true.

    3) The existence and validity of logical rules themselves are a "hidden premise" within all deductive reasoning.

    4) As such, the rules of logic occupy no "privileged place" in the order of necessity. While conclusions of logic are necessary once the premises (including the hidden premise of the laws of logic themselves) are granted, the laws themselves are no more necessary than any other theoretical idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Al Ghazali, "The Rescuer From Error"
    Then I reflected in myself: " Since I can not trust to the evidence of my senses, I must rely only on intellectual notions based on fundamental principles, such as the following axioms: "Ten is more than three. Affirmation and negation can not coexist together. A thing can not both be created and also existent from eternity, living and annihilated simultaneously, at once necessary and impossible." To this the notions I derived from my senses made the following objections: "Who can guarantee you that you can trust to the evidence of reason more than to that of the senses? You believed in our testimony till it was contradicted by the verdict of reason, otherwise you would have continued to believe it to this day. Well, perhaps, there is above reason another judge who, if he appeared, would convict reason of falsehood, just as reason has confuted us. And if such a third arbiter is not yet apparent, it does not follow that he does not exist."

    To this argument I remained some time without reply; a reflection drawn from the phenomena of sleep deepened my doubt. " Do you not see," I reflected, " that while asleep you assume your dreams to be indisputably real? Once awake, you recognize them for what they are baseless chimeras. Who can assure you, then, of the reliability of notions which, when awake, you derive from the senses and from reason? In relation to your present state they may be real; but it is possible also that you may enter upon another state of being which will bear the same relation to your present state as this does to your condition when asleep. In that new sphere you will recognize that the conclusions of reason are only chimeras."

    This possible condition is, perhaps, that which the Sufis call " ecstasy " (hal), that is to say, according to them, a state in which, absorbed in themselves and in the suspension of sense-perceptions, they have visions beyond the reach of intellect. Perhaps also Death is that state, according to that saying of the prince of prophets: " Men are asleep; when they die, they wake." Our present life in relation to the future is perhaps only a dream, and man, once dead, will see things in direct opposition to those now before his eyes; he will then understand that word of the Koran, " To-day we have removed the veil from thine eyes and thy sight is keen."
    5) Therefore, when we assent to the existance of the laws of logic, we are not making a logical assertion. This is precisely analogous to the 'rationality' and 'irrationality' of socionics. Deductions from the laws of logic are 'rational'. The belief in the laws of logic in the first place is 'irrational'.

    6) So, since the foundation of all justification is belief (since the laws of logic cannot, according to themselves, prove themselves), there must be some valid way to determine truth beyond the laws of logic. In other words, there is no proof, only persuasion (for a powerful and 'cognitively original' example of the difference between proof and persuasion, read Austen's novel Persuasion)

    7) Evidence of the ability of logic to destroy itself is furnished by the work of Parmenides and the paradoxes of his follower Xeno.

    8) Also, the problem of induction further casts doubt on the ability of logical deduction to arrive at certain truth. Simply put, if the laws of logic are so absolute, how is it that conclusions change from generation to generation?

    9) As such, there are some cases in which it is proper or valid to believe without explicit justification. We have already seen once instance of this class: The belief in the laws of logic (note that it is only convention that makes us agree that the belief in the laws of logic is proper and valid---firm believers in some sects of Hinduism and New Age religion are likely to disagree with some laws of logic, such as non-disjunction).

    10) How then, shall we determine truth? By weighing all things together, considering all sides and all arguments, and coming to a conclusion via the sea-like persuasion of the wise, rather than the earth-bound proof of the learned.

    Bonus) Few propositions are absolutely true or absolutely false. Any value judgment, except to say that God is good, is an admixture of true and false. The earth is neither good nor bad, but both. Even phrases like "the tide bottle is orange" is not absolutely true, for it is only 'orange' insofar as my brain processes the light that bounces off of it in a way that is identified with other objects and grouped under the heading "orange". If another person's brain processes that same light as green, how can we say they are wrong? We can merely say that they are different. Most propositions are an admixture of truth and falsity, and almost all, in this world of shadow and flame, turns on which side is emphasized. All dichotomies resolve to unities, but since we cannot perceive the unities, both our personalities and our beliefs turn on which side is emphasized. To apply this to a current debate, sex before marriage is both right and wrong. It is right for people to express themselves. It is right for people not to repress themselves. It is right for people to experience pleasure. All of those things are also wrong. There is a unity into which these opposites resolve, but that is too high for us to comprehend.
    Last edited by silverchris9; 11-12-2010 at 05:35 PM.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    11) philosophy of epistemics and logic are boring and useless

  3. #3
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,724
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I love this but need maybe three more days with it, and even then I'll have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  4. #4
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,072
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default More on Justification

    My apologetics teacher in high school held that one may say that one's belief is justified when objections thereto are more ridiculous than the original assertion. But what is the arbiter of ridiculousness? Culture. To the Greeks, what could be more ridiculous than creation ex nihilo? Thus, as al Ghazali later says, philosophy ultimately rests upon a bed of convention, as Socrates did not reason from universals, but rather began always with premises such as "we agree that... do you agree that... let us say that..." As such, philosophy cannot establish necessary or certain truth. In truth, philosophy, or analytic philosophy, establishes "that truth which arises when everything that can be broken is broken." That is, truths arrived at by pure reason are the truths we can believe without having to forsake those beliefs which are most integral to ourselves, those beliefs which are most "self-evident". We cannot believe that it is good to murder children (except for one crackpot at Princeton, but he's a crackpot). Some of us cannot believe it is possible to have a being that exists outside of time. But when we break that which cannot be broken (without breaking ourselves, or "dying" in Emily Dickinson's sense--to live is glee; to die is gain), then, perhaps we can know a fuller truth, and start accessing some of those unities that lie behind the dichotomies that organize experience.

    Let us reason from experience, and recognize "mystical experience" as a part of experience. It is experience of a different class and kind than sensory experience, and harder to classify and make explicit. And yet we must recognize that it too has a place and a role and a function ("The other I am must not abase itself to you/and you must not be abased to the other.") It too communicates truth, only in a different way, and so we must approach the integration of that truth into our lives in a different way. Stop building models and then dropping them, like carpet, on top of things. Rather, humbly walk down your neighborhood streets, and sketch what you see there, to as fine and as close a detail as you may, and perhaps then we will find something worthwhile.
    Last edited by silverchris9; 11-15-2010 at 04:08 AM.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  5. #5
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,792
    Mentioned
    205 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    1) There is no such thing as self-evidence. Self-evidence is a nice way of saying circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a negative way of saying self-evident.
    Self-evident statement?

  6. #6
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,072
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Self-evident statement?
    Very nice. Here's my evasion: nope, merely an assertion or belief, which I may hope to persuade you of using examples, perhaps.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  7. #7
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    794
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The thing about rationalism is the understanding that the natural complement of logic is empiricism. No rationalist is going to assert the absolute certainty of any form of "knowledge." (insert discourse about the etymology of the word "knowledge" here, along with definitions of "truth" and "reason") Not to get too Randian, but rationalism is preferred because it works. Honestly, why reject something that holds under scrutiny?

  8. #8
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,072
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MatthewZ View Post
    The thing about rationalism is the understanding that the natural complement of logic is empiricism. No rationalist is going to assert the absolute certainty of any form of "knowledge." (insert discourse about the etymology of the word "knowledge" here, along with definitions of "truth" and "reason") Not to get too Randian, but rationalism is preferred because it works. Honestly, why reject something that holds under scrutiny?
    Because I don't think it works under certain conditions, and about certain things, like the nature of consciousness, the soul, etc. More seriously, I still hold logical demonstration of a proposition to be highly persuasive, and more persuasive the more rigorous and sound the proof is. But I don't think it constitutes inviolable proof, nor that logical demonstration is the only road to truth.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  9. #9
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    794
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    Because I don't think it works under certain conditions, and about certain things, like the nature of consciousness, the soul, etc. More seriously, I still hold logical demonstration of a proposition to be highly persuasive, and more persuasive the more rigorous and sound the proof is. But I don't think it constitutes inviolable proof, nor that logical demonstration is the only road to truth.
    Assuming the existence of either consciousness or a soul, of course.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •