Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Philosophy] Rationalism: Is Rational

_J__J_ PedantRegistered User regular
edited April 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
All that I have, up to this moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I received either from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these sometimes misled us; and it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived.
-Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy


This thread is for the discussion of Rationalist Philosophy and the Rationalist Philosophers.


First, what is Rationalist Philosophy?
Rationalism: Any of the variety of views emphasizing the role or importance of reason, usually including intuition, in contrast to sensory experience (including introspection), the feelings, or authority. Just as an extreme empiricist tries to base all our knowledge on experience, so an extreme rationalist tries to base it on reason.

Primarily, the Rationalist thinks that knowledge is based upon reason or intuition, rather than sense data. While an empiricist would maintain that to know that which is the case one must utilize and rely upon sense data, a rationalist will maintain that to know that which is the case one must utilize reason and intuition.

But who would believe such a thing?!


Notable Rationalists:

Parmenides:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Parmenides
Wikipedia: Parmenides

Parmenides noted that the very idea of changed was fundamentally contradictory and so to be in conformity with reason, reality must be devoid of change. In Parmenides one finds the first instance, in the history of Western Philosophy, of the idea that reality must be beholden to reason, that reason provides knowledge of that which is the case. Since change is not reasonable, there can be no change within reality.


Zeno of Elea:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Zeno of Elea
Wikipedia: Zeno of Elea

Zeno constructed multiple paradoxes which articulate the impossibility of motion. For example, if the distance between point A and point B is x, then to traverse the distance x one must first traverse the distance of ½ x. But to traverse that distance one must first traverse a distance of ½ of ½ of x. This results in an infinite regress of infinite halfway points, thus proving, rationally, that movement is impossible.

As with Parmenides, Zeno maintains that reality, that which is the case, must be beholden to reason. Since, reasonably, one can understand that any distance can be divided into an infinite number of halfway points it must be the case that reality, too, is divided into an infinite number of halfway points, thus making movement impossible.


Plato:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Plato
Wikipedia: Plato

It is possible to read Plato, at moments, as a Rationalist insofar as his philosophical system posits that The Forms, ideas, are the most primary and important. To know reality is to know the Forms. Since knowledge of the Forms is obtained via reason and intuition rather than empirical sense data, Plato can be read as a Rationalist.


Rene Descartes:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Rene Descartes
Wikipedia: Rene Descartes

In his Meditations, Descartes seeks to know that which can be known Certainly, to dismiss all that may be false and discern a Certain Truth. Descartes does this via reason and intuition, abandoning sense data. Descartes posits, among other things, that he is most fundamentally a thinking thing rather than a sensing thing. Descartes is an example of how one comes to know purely through reason.


Baruch Spinoza:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Spinoza
Wikipedia: Spinoza

Spinoza’s Ethics is the finest example of the geometric method of philosophy. By constructing a system of definitions, axioms, and propositions Spinoza articulates a deductively coherent narrative of the way things are founded purely upon reason and intuition.


Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Leibniz
Wikipedia: Leibniz

In addition to inventing calculus, Leibniz introduced the concept of the monad to philosophy. Leibniz also articulated the first account of a non-causal universe wherein all that occurs results from the universal pre-established harmony of all things.


Immanuel Kant:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Kant on Reason
Wikipedia: Kant

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant seeks to engages Hume’s Empirical Skepticism by way of Rationalism. Hume notes that, for example, it is impossible to know causality by means of only Empirical Knowledge. So, part of Kant’s project is to argue that one can know of causality via Reason. This sets up the problem of how one can know synthetic truths a priori. Or, how can there be synthetic a priori truths.


Alright, so those guys were Rationalists. But why should I, a humble being mucking about in the year our lord 2010 be a Rationalist?


Arguments for the legitimacy and correctness of Rationalism:

1) The Quest for Certainty
Spoiler:

2) The Fallibility of Sense Data
Spoiler:

3) Reason or Sense Data: Pick One!
Spoiler:

4) Rationalism is less messy than Empiricism
Spoiler:

So we have covered what Rationalism is, who the primary Rationalists in the history of Western Philosophy are, and why Rationalism thinks the shit out of Empiricism.

Discuss!

_J_ on
Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
«13456745

Posts

  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Lately, I've really become interested in monadology and and Leibnizian mechanics. I think that any discussion of rationalism must start out with what I take to be the primary question, namely

    What exists?

    The answer to this is almost always for the rationalists "Substance," in which case we must ask

    What is [a] substance?

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Also, Descartes textbook is better than meditations.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Podly wrote: »
    Lately, I've really become interested in monadology and and Leibnizian mechanics. I think that any discussion of rationalism must start out with what I take to be the primary question, namely

    What exists?

    The answer to this is almost always for the rationalists "Substance," in which case we must ask

    What is [a] substance?

    I take the primary question of Rationalism to be a concern for the issue of Knowledge; it is an epistemic consideration rather than an ontological consideration.

    That being said, I think the issue of Substance, which nigh-all Rationalists utlize in their ontology, can be answered quite simply:

    Substance: That which exists in a state of constancy.
    Attribute / Property: That which changes.

    This will differ for various writers, but I think the issue of substance is primarily a concern for a constancy to the "material" component of "that which is the case". If there is a something "out there", then that something is made of something. That something of which the something is made is substance.

    Again, though, I take the Rationalists to be primarily epistemologists rather than ontologists. While they need to do ontology, I think this secondary.

    Edit: Substance is kind of the "unmoved mover" of being. We stop asking the "what is that made of" question once we get to substance, because substance is not made of anything; rather, substance simply is.

    But, again, this is ontology rather than epistemology.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    We generally acknowledge that we are capable of carrying out logical fallacies. Since we admit that our logic is capable of being flawed, doesn't that mean that we can't place absolute faith in it either? How do we know that any particular piece of logic that is widely held to be correct isn't just everyone being wrong?

  • CandlemassCandlemass Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Must I be either a rationalist or an empiricist? At least as is outlined in this thread. Why accept the proposed rationalism if, as Kant had noticed, it has yet to truly have expanded our knowledge. Must the world be rational and can it be brought under a unity of indubitable principles? Maybe this entire way of thinking is a dead end.

    Also, are not notions such as sense data in disrepute among a good number of modern philosophers?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    We generally acknowledge that we are capable of carrying out logical fallacies.

    What do you mean by this?
    jothki wrote: »
    Since we admit that our logic is capable of being flawed, doesn't that mean that we can't place absolute faith in it either?

    Logic is not flawed.
    jothki wrote: »
    How do we know that any particular piece of logic that is widely held to be correct isn't just everyone being wrong?

    The rules of logic are not social constructs but rather are understood via one's rational faculties to be either correct or incorrect.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Candlemass wrote: »
    Must I be either a rationalist or an empiricist?

    To engage philosophy? I think so, yes. I do not know what it would be to actually be neither rationalist nor empiricist.
    Candlemass wrote: »
    Why accept the proposed rationalism if, as Kant had noticed, it has yet to truly have expanded our knowledge.

    Expanse of knowledge is not the point. The point is not to expand knowledge, but rather to Know with Certainty that which can be Known.
    Candlemass wrote: »
    Must the world be rational and can it be brought under a unity of indubitable principles? Maybe this entire way of thinking is a dead end.

    I think a wealth of arguments can be given for why the world must be rational or, said better, rationally intelligible. While it may be possible to tell a coherent narrative for how the world is not rational, I think the telling of the coherent narrative would be proof against itself.
    Candlemass wrote: »
    Also, are not notions such as sense data in disrepute among a good number of modern philosophers?

    Most Modern philosophers give accounts of sense data and either save it or dismiss it. Is that your point?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    how can we be certain that reality follows the rules of logic or reason?

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    how can we be certain that reality follows the rules of logic or reason?

    1) God loves us.
    -God must be good, for to be evil would be a lack, and god lacks nothing. Since god created us as beings with reason, and since god is good, it must be the case that reality follows the rules of logic or reason. It would have been evil for god to have give us logic and reason yet constructed reality to not follow those laws.


    2) Mathematics.
    - Reality is lawful; this lawfulness is replicated in mathematics.


    3) Logic / Reason supports itself, reality follows from them.
    -It is not the case that one starts with reality and then must cohere logic and reason to that reality. Rather, one starts with logic and reason and then, via logical and reasonable deductions, gets to reality.

    4) By definition.
    - Reality is that which follows from logic and reason. Any"thing"which would not follow from logic and reason is not reality.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    how can we be certain that reality follows the rules of logic or reason?

    Because the other option is literally nonsense.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    how can we be certain that reality follows the rules of logic or reason?

    1) God loves us.
    -God must be good, for to be evil would be a lack, and god lacks nothing. Since god created us as beings with reason, and since god is good, it must be the case that reality follows the rules of logic or reason. It would have been evil for god to have give us logic and reason yet constructed reality to not follow those laws.


    2) Mathematics.
    - Reality is lawful; this lawfulness is replicated in mathematics.


    3) Logic / Reason supports itself, reality follows from them.
    -It is not the case that one starts with reality and then must cohere logic and reason to that reality. Rather, one starts with logic and reason and then, via logical and reasonable deductions, gets to reality.

    4) By definition.
    - Reality is that which follows from logic and reason. Any"thing"which would not follow from logic and reason is not reality.

    so particles which defy the logical properties of identity are not real?

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited March 2010

    so particles which defy the logical properties of identity are not real?

    So, if i understand properly. There are individual particles, separate entities, but have no identity criterion? I mean, if you say that there are "particles" you are claiming that there are many objects, there must be identity criterion for them or else you would not be able to say "particles"

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    The rules of logic are not social constructs but rather are understood via one's rational faculties to be either correct or incorrect.

    How do I know that my rational faculties are trustworthy?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited March 2010

    so particles which defy the logical properties of identity are not real?

    So, if i understand properly. There are individual particles, separate entities, but have no identity criterion? I mean, if you say that there are "particles" you are claiming that there are many objects, there must be identity criterion for them or else you would not be able to say "particles"

    particles which can be in multiple locations at once, particles which do not follow the laws of causality, particles which arrive at their destination before they are emitted from their source, etc

    basically, why do many logical rules seem to break down at the subatomic level?

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited March 2010

    so particles which defy the logical properties of identity are not real?

    So, if i understand properly. There are individual particles, separate entities, but have no identity criterion? I mean, if you say that there are "particles" you are claiming that there are many objects, there must be identity criterion for them or else you would not be able to say "particles"

    particles which can be in multiple locations at once, particles which do not follow the laws of causality, particles which arrive at their destination before they are emitted from their source, etc

    basically, why do many logical rules seem to break down at the subatomic level?

    I fail to understand how any of those things violate the basic laws of logic.

    It seems like they pose problems for science, and perhaps how we think about the world. But none of them seem to break the principle of identity, the law of non-contradiction, or the law of the excluded middle (which is the most suspect of the laws of logic)

    I mean, what specific instance is a "logical rule" being broken?

    Feral: There is a distinction to be made between reason and your particular ability to reason. You may not be able to reason well, but that isn't the fault of reason, it's the fault of your capacity.

    EDIT: I would like to get this out of the way real early I AM NOT A RATIONALIST, RATIONALISM IS DUMB

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral: There is a distinction to be made between reason and your particular ability to reason. You may not be able to reason well, but that isn't the fault of reason, it's the fault of your capacity.

    How do we know that reason is trustworthy?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited March 2010

    so particles which defy the logical properties of identity are not real?

    So, if i understand properly. There are individual particles, separate entities, but have no identity criterion? I mean, if you say that there are "particles" you are claiming that there are many objects, there must be identity criterion for them or else you would not be able to say "particles"

    particles which can be in multiple locations at once, particles which do not follow the laws of causality, particles which arrive at their destination before they are emitted from their source, etc

    basically, why do many logical rules seem to break down at the subatomic level?

    I fail to understand how any of those things violate the basic laws of logic.

    It seems like they pose problems for science, and perhaps how we think about the world. But none of them seem to break the principle of identity, the law of non-contradiction, or the law of the excluded middle (which is the most suspect of the laws of logic)

    I mean, what specific instance is a "logical rule" being broken?

    Feral: There is a distinction to be made between reason and your particular ability to reason. You may not be able to reason well, but that isn't the fault of reason, it's the fault of your capacity.

    EDIT: I would like to get this out of the way real early I AM NOT A RATIONALIST, RATIONALISM IS DUMB

    if a thing does not follow the rules of causality, then it is violating the rules of reason. you can't have reason without causality.

    and how is it logical that one thing can be in two places at once? this is a seemingly illogical event. there is no provision for it, as far as i know.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral: There is a distinction to be made between reason and your particular ability to reason. You may not be able to reason well, but that isn't the fault of reason, it's the fault of your capacity.

    How do we know that reason is trustworthy?

    It all boils down to logic, essentially. A perfect ability to reason would be one which committed no logical errors. This isn't just simple propositional logic either. The umbrella covers mathematical induction, predicate logic, modal logic, fuzzy logic

    We know it's trustworthy because it has been demonstrated to be so Godel was the first, but today you learn how to do it in logic classes. He proved that first order logic was sound and complete, unlike math, which perhaps is the proof that he's most famous for.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited March 2010

    so particles which defy the logical properties of identity are not real?

    So, if i understand properly. There are individual particles, separate entities, but have no identity criterion? I mean, if you say that there are "particles" you are claiming that there are many objects, there must be identity criterion for them or else you would not be able to say "particles"

    particles which can be in multiple locations at once, particles which do not follow the laws of causality, particles which arrive at their destination before they are emitted from their source, etc

    basically, why do many logical rules seem to break down at the subatomic level?

    I fail to understand how any of those things violate the basic laws of logic.

    It seems like they pose problems for science, and perhaps how we think about the world. But none of them seem to break the principle of identity, the law of non-contradiction, or the law of the excluded middle (which is the most suspect of the laws of logic)

    I mean, what specific instance is a "logical rule" being broken?

    Feral: There is a distinction to be made between reason and your particular ability to reason. You may not be able to reason well, but that isn't the fault of reason, it's the fault of your capacity.

    EDIT: I would like to get this out of the way real early I AM NOT A RATIONALIST, RATIONALISM IS DUMB

    if a thing does not follow the rules of causality, then it is violating the rules of reason. you can't have reason without causality.

    and how is it logical that one thing can be in two places at once? this is a seemingly illogical event. there is no provision for it, as far as i know.

    You are using two senses of the word "logic" here.

    It violates no rules of first order logic for a particle to be in two places at once (i'm talking the 3 basic principles and the 10 rules of inference). However, it does sound strange. The rules of logic are very basic, they don't talk about the rules that like science must adhere to or anything like that.

    Just because something doesn't match up with our current view of the world doesn't make it "illogical."

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    It all boils down to logic, essentially.

    How do I know that logic is trustworthy?

    How do I know that there isn't an evil demon poking my brain meats with an electrode making me think that A ≡ A and ¬(P ∨ ¬P)?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    If we are taking a purity test, I am certainly not a rationalist, (nor am I an empiricist) though I find their positions a source of endless inspiration and paths for thought, and I enjoy defending them.

    _J_, I take substance to be defined as that which is capable of subsistance; i.e., that which can exist without the existence of another being. This is Descartes definition, and it is why he gets into a lot of trouble -- because it is clear that God is the only real being, because it is only through the will of god that all other beings subsist. This is where we get spinoza -- the mind is god under the attribute of thought.

    Which is why I prefer Leibniz's modal and monadological approach to rationalism -- that the only true substances are the simple substances, the monads, which aggregate to form aggregate substances. The monads are non-physical, but are the ground whence springs materiality. To EM, rationalist poldy would probably say "subatomic particles (SAPs) do not seem to obey the laws of logic; there are, however, sub-subatomic particles (SSAPs) which do obey the laws of logic. If these SSAPs obey the laws of logic, why do SAPs not? Rather, we are in error in our theories, and we ought frame them in a different light to see how they do fit the laws of logic.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    It all boils down to logic, essentially.

    How do I know that logic is trustworthy?

    How do I know that there isn't an evil demon poking my brain meats with an electrode making me think that A ≡ A and ¬(P ∨ ¬P)?

    Then the only way to make strong rational arguments is have the arguments come from an intelligent being from outside the physical world. Or God. Or an AI of some kind.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    It all boils down to logic, essentially.

    How do I know that logic is trustworthy?

    How do I know that there isn't an evil demon poking my brain meats with an electrode making me think that A ≡ A and ¬(P ∨ ¬P)?

    This one's easy. How would the evil demon break the laws of logic? The laws of logic are necessarily so. How would an evil genius make it so that P ^ ¬P? That would necessitate that the evil demon (and by extension, me) exist in a world where P ^ ¬P, which is impossible.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Podly wrote: »
    This one's easy. How would the evil demon break the laws of logic? The laws of logic are necessarily so. How would an evil genius make it so that P ^ ¬P? That would necessitate that the evil demon (and by extension, me) exist in a world where P ^ ¬P, which is impossible.

    How do I know that it's impossible?

    I certainly can't imagine a thing that is both P and ¬P except in the vaguest abstractions, but my inability to imagine a thing doesn't make it impossible. There are a great many things that I can barely fathom in the vaguest abstractions, like electron orbitals or the mass of a black hole.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    This one's easy. How would the evil demon break the laws of logic? The laws of logic are necessarily so. How would an evil genius make it so that P ^ ¬P? That would necessitate that the evil demon (and by extension, me) exist in a world where P ^ ¬P, which is impossible.

    How do I know that it's impossible?

    How can we say that x exists and x also doesn't exist? If X exists, then there is some attribute by which we may say it is mechanically active or conceptually grasped. If it is completely passive and not in some way active than there is no attribute by which it might be known, and in which case how could it exist?

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Podly wrote: »
    How can we say that x exists and x also doesn't exist?

    Simple. X exists and also doesn't exist.
    Podly wrote: »
    If it is completely passive and not in some way active than there is no attribute by which it might be known, and in which case how could it exist?

    It exists but it is not active and it cannot be known. Must something be knowable for it to exist?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Is existence dependent upon your ability to imagine a thing?

    If something is unimaginable, it doesn't exist?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    How can we say that x exists and x also doesn't exist?

    Simple. X exists and also doesn't exist.

    If you knew of its existence, how would you know of it's non-existence?
    Podly wrote: »
    If it is completely passive and not in some way active than there is no attribute by which it might be known, and in which case how could it exist?

    It exists but it is not active and it cannot be known. Must something be knowable for it to exist?

    Rationalist Poldy says yes. How could it be otherwise? How could something exist if it gave no information? How would it be said to exist at all if it did nothing, if it were unknowable by even God?

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Podly wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    It all boils down to logic, essentially.

    How do I know that logic is trustworthy?

    How do I know that there isn't an evil demon poking my brain meats with an electrode making me think that A ≡ A and ¬(P ∨ ¬P)?

    This one's easy. How would the evil demon break the laws of logic? The laws of logic are necessarily so. How would an evil genius make it so that P ^ ¬P? That would necessitate that the evil demon (and by extension, me) exist in a world where P ^ ¬P, which is impossible.

    Oh, pffft. I thought it was a question of being able to recognize the terms being plugged into the logic. A=A unless an invisible demon is disguising a B, making it resemble an A.

    A A C D E F G.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • PodlyPodly good moleman to youRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Is existence dependent upon your ability to imagine a thing?

    If something is unimaginable, it doesn't exist?

    We live in a world which is the most perfect world, because God created the world and would not create the best possible world. God knows all that exists in the world. If X exists, there must be some attribute by which it could be known by God. If it were completely passive, then it is in no way close to perfection and God thereby would not have created it.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    hlB028K.png?1
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Why are we assuming that logic is correct? Is there any way to actually demonstrate the correctness of logic without resorting to begging the question?

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    I certainly can't imagine a thing that is both P and ¬P except in the vaguest abstractions, but my inability to imagine a thing doesn't make it impossible.

    You are equivocating "imagine" and "reason".

    The law of identity (your P and ¬P), is not an issue of imagination but rather an issue of reason. You cannot REASON for a thing to be both P and ¬P.

    Which is all we care about, as rationalists.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Why are we assuming that logic is correct? Is there any way to actually demonstrate the correctness of logic without resorting to begging the question?

    Yes, read Godel. He did it.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Why are we assuming that logic is correct? Is there any way to actually demonstrate the correctness of logic without resorting to begging the question?

    Yes, read Godel. He did it.

    Can you give a bit of a summary for me?

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Why are we assuming that logic is correct? Is there any way to actually demonstrate the correctness of logic without resorting to begging the question?

    Couple things.

    We may be equivocating "logic" with "reason". Logic is a subset of reason, I would think.

    It is not that we "assume" logic to be correct. Rather, by means of reason one always reasons as one reasons.

    Take feral's P and ¬P issue. By reason, a thing cannot be both P and ¬P. That is not an issue of demonstration; one need not demonstrate that a thing is P and ¬P, then demonstrate that a thing is P and ¬P, ad infinitum.

    Rather, reason is beholden to the laws of reason; logic is beholden to the rules of logic.

    There is no demonstration required, for the rationalist. It is a matter of reason and understanding.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    if a thing does not follow the rules of causality, then it is violating the rules of reason. you can't have reason without causality.

    This is false. Or, at least, this is not how Rationalists understand things to be.

    One of the points of contention for Hume and Kant, for example, is the tension over whether or not there is such a thing as causality. Hume maintains that it cannot be known. Kant argues, via reason, for there being causality.

    Leibniz dismisses the notion of causality completely and opts for universal pre-established harmony.

    So, why do you meantain that causality is required for reason? I do not think any Rationalist / philosopher would maintain that position...so I am curious as to why you do.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Why are we assuming that logic is correct? Is there any way to actually demonstrate the correctness of logic without resorting to begging the question?

    Yes, read Godel. He did it.

    Can you give a bit of a summary for me?

    Not really, i mean, honestly, i haven't read the proof myself. All i know is that he proved the soundness and completeness of predicate logic and then went on to prove that the axioms of math are not complete. I think he claimed that math + logic would be complete.


    Soundness is essentially how correctly it can perform some operation. If you plug correct things in logically, you get correct things out. If you get something incorrect out, you put something incorrect in.

    Completeness essentially means that it covers all the bases. If a sentence has a truth value, then predicate logic can deal with it.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I prefer Irrationalism. Life is so much more interesting when you act solely out of emotion.

    steam_sig.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Is existence dependent upon your ability to imagine a thing?

    If something is unimaginable, it doesn't exist?

    Imagination is not the issue. Reason is the issue.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    I prefer Irrationalism. Life is so much more interesting when you act solely out of emotion.

    Ick. I hate the juxtaposition of reason and emotion. Like they are two poles. Fucking Plato.

    There seems to be a serious movement today where people aren't considering reason and emotion to be fundamentally different.

    I find myself liking this.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
«13456745
Sign In or Register to comment.