Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What Is Guiding Reason?

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 1:03:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What is guiding reason, or rather what is behind it? I don't mean a soul either because then what would be guiding the souls reason.

I think this was a question statement that Martin Heidegger made. What is behind reason.

There must be a principle behind it because reason isnt !n operating entity on its own. I think the Transcendental Argument for God is based on a similar notion, but it comes to the wrong conclusion that its God.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 1:10:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Chemical reactions in our brain guide reason. The nature of those reactions are a product of our environment and of our biology, which is a product of evolution.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 1:18:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 1:10:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Chemical reactions in our brain guide reason.

Irrationality, ill logic, and ignorance are the product of chemical reactions too. So the same thing that guides irrationality is the same thing that guides reason.

I see a problem there.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 1:23:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 1:20:30 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I don't understand the question.

What is the principle behind reason. What is its basis.

What do you mean by reason?

In the philosophical sense. The way of reaching logical conclusions.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 1:25:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 1:10:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Chemical reactions in our brain guide reason. The nature of those reactions are a product of our environment and of our biology, which is a product of evolution.

Reason is prescriptive not descriptive.

Also, if we evolved in another way does that mean that reasoning by logical laws could've been different?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 1:33:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 1:23:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/1/2010 1:20:30 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I don't understand the question.

What is the principle behind reason. What is its basis.

What do you mean by reason?

In the philosophical sense. The way of reaching logical conclusions.

I'm thinking it's mathematical. If X+Y then Z.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 1:36:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 1:25:55 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/1/2010 1:10:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Chemical reactions in our brain guide reason. The nature of those reactions are a product of our environment and of our biology, which is a product of evolution.

Reason is prescriptive not descriptive.

Also, if we evolved in another way does that mean that reasoning by logical laws could've been different?

No, we evolved this way because of how things objectively are.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 1:36:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 1:18:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/1/2010 1:10:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Chemical reactions in our brain guide reason.

Irrationality, ill logic, and ignorance are the product of chemical reactions too. So the same thing that guides irrationality is the same thing that guides reason.

I see a problem there.

I don't.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 1:41:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No, we evolved this way because of how things objectively are.

How we evolved to process reason is distinct from how reason works.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 1:41:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 1:36:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/1/2010 1:25:55 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/1/2010 1:10:31 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Chemical reactions in our brain guide reason. The nature of those reactions are a product of our environment and of our biology, which is a product of evolution.

Reason is prescriptive not descriptive.

Also, if we evolved in another way does that mean that reasoning by logical laws could've been different?

No, we evolved this way because of how things objectively are.

That doesn't make any sense. How are you deriving a prescription from a description? What do you mean by "how things objectively are"?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 1:51:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 1:35:47 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
You should look into epistemology, namely theories of justification.

I don't think this is necesarily an epistemological question, but what do your epistemic theories say regarding this matter?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 2:28:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think reason is slightly more complicated than just chemical reactions. It is swayed by social and environmental factors. It could be seen as mathematical, i.e. x + y = z. But societal factors dictate what x, y and z are. For example, if you wanted to get to London from New York as quickly as possible, the reasonable thing to do would be to fly in an airplane. A hundred years ago, flying wouldn't be seen as reasonable (obviously) since international flights did not exist.

Reason is dependent on the influences around you (political, social and economical). At the root of it, it could begin as a chemical reaction but to really use reason, that is subjective to where you are and who you are.

I'm not sure if this really answers the question but it makes sense to me at least...
'-__-
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 2:58:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wow. I didn't know you were a relativist.

You don't believe there is object truth? If everything is relative, nothing is reasonable nor can anything be logically deduced.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 3:10:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 2:58:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Wow. I didn't know you were a relativist.

You don't believe there is object truth? If everything is relative, nothing is reasonable nor can anything be logically deduced.

That is not true. Things can be "logically deduced" and be seen as "reasonable" but that does not mean that is the only thing reasonable or logical.

I.E.
Statement: It is wrong to hurt someone.

Absolutism: It is always wrong to hurt someone.

Relativism: That is dependent on the people perpetrating the harm. Where are they geographically? What is their purpose? If it is torture, it is seen as necessary for information in many countries. It is unreasonable to think it is always wrong to hurt someone, since not everyone believes it is wrong 100% of the time.

There is no such thing as the absolute truth. There is no such thing as absolute reason. It is completely subjective.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 3:19:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 3:10:15 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 7/1/2010 2:58:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Wow. I didn't know you were a relativist.

You don't believe there is object truth? If everything is relative, nothing is reasonable nor can anything be logically deduced.

That is not true. Things can be "logically deduced" and be seen as "reasonable" but that does not mean that is the only thing reasonable or logical.

I.E.
Statement: It is wrong to hurt someone.

Absolutism: It is always wrong to hurt someone.

Relativism: That is dependent on the people perpetrating the harm. Where are they geographically? What is their purpose? If it is torture, it is seen as necessary for information in many countries. It is unreasonable to think it is always wrong to hurt someone, since not everyone believes it is wrong 100% of the time.

Moral relativism is a bit different. Most Atheists believe in moral relativism, but believe in objective truth.

There is no such thing as the absolute truth. There is no such thing as absolute reason. It is completely subjective.

Ok. So by the Theists subjective reasoning, you are illogical.

Isn't it objectively true that gravity exists?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 3:34:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 3:19:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/1/2010 3:10:15 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 7/1/2010 2:58:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Wow. I didn't know you were a relativist.

You don't believe there is object truth? If everything is relative, nothing is reasonable nor can anything be logically deduced.

That is not true. Things can be "logically deduced" and be seen as "reasonable" but that does not mean that is the only thing reasonable or logical.

I.E.
Statement: It is wrong to hurt someone.

Absolutism: It is always wrong to hurt someone.

Relativism: That is dependent on the people perpetrating the harm. Where are they geographically? What is their purpose? If it is torture, it is seen as necessary for information in many countries. It is unreasonable to think it is always wrong to hurt someone, since not everyone believes it is wrong 100% of the time.

Moral relativism is a bit different. Most Atheists believe in moral relativism, but believe in objective truth.

There is no such thing as the absolute truth. There is no such thing as absolute reason. It is completely subjective.

Ok. So by the Theists subjective reasoning, you are illogical.

Isn't it objectively true that gravity exists?

Once again, it is subjective. Since I am analytical and like logic, of course I believe in gravity. I have done tests in multiple science classes proving gravity. But just because some think they have proven it to be real, doesn't mean that everyone will follow in their logic.

There are still people out there that deny gravity's existence. And it is true that scientists are still trying to figure out exactly what gravity is.

http://mikeschuler.site.aplus.net...
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 3:43:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ok, that was a bad example. Does the moon exist objectively?

Doesn't science make objective discoveries?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 3:49:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 3:43:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Ok, that was a bad example. Does the moon exist objectively?

Doesn't science make objective discoveries?

It makes objective discoveries to those who want to believe in it. You gave the example of a moon. My mother is wiccan and believes that the moon is a crystal, magnifying waves of radiance on us. Is the moon a crystal? No. But in her faith, this is what she truly believes. Science can only prove facts but it cannot overcome the reason inside some people. Those who are predisposed to other myths and superstitions will not as readily succumb to scientific discoveries.

There are always multiple ways of looking at one thing (i.e. the moon), and yes, each has a varying degree of "reasonableness" to it. I can safely say that the moon is not crystal. But my mother is quick to dismiss science since she says it does not affect her. There can't be one truth, nor one reason.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 4:18:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You just conceded that science can prove facts but that some won't accept it. Well if they dont accept it, thats unreasonable and illogical.

There is an absolute truth, but many will not accept it or know about it.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 4:37:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 4:18:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You just conceded that science can prove facts but that some won't accept it. Well if they dont accept it, thats unreasonable and illogical.

There is an absolute truth, but many will not accept it or know about it.

No, I believe in gravity. I know the moon is there and not made up of crystal. Yet, gravity itself has not been proven; it is still a theory. Scientists still do not know what creates this force and how it exists. Newton and Einstein described it as an attractive force but since then, we have learned that particles at such a small size, react completely different than expected. If gravity itself really hasn't been completely proven, it is not the truth as of yet. It is an "agreed-upon" truth. Most accept it; but not all believe it since these "facts" are contested by many.
http://www.seattlepi.com...

What you believe to be absolute truths now, could change in twenty years as science continues to solve mysteries but also change our thinking of the basic functioning of our surroundings. What we see as truth, is subjective to our knowledge and understanding, which in most cases is still limited.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 4:45:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm not talking about scientific theory. I'm talking about scientific fact. You just conceded that science proves facts. Then you brought up gravity which I already dismissed as a bad example because its theory, not fact.

I know that science continually updates itself, but some scientific facts have been confirmed and won't change. The earth does in fact revolve around the sun and no future scientific discovery will change that.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 4:49:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 4:45:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm not talking about scientific theory. I'm talking about scientific fact. You just conceded that science proves facts. Then you brought up gravity which I already dismissed as a bad example because its theory, not fact.

A scientific theory is in part comprised of scientific facts.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 4:52:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 4:49:30 PM, Puck wrote:
At 7/1/2010 4:45:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm not talking about scientific theory. I'm talking about scientific fact. You just conceded that science proves facts. Then you brought up gravity which I already dismissed as a bad example because its theory, not fact.

A scientific theory is in part comprised of scientific facts.

I know with that. But i don't want to give her wiggle-room. :p
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 4:57:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 4:45:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm not talking about scientific theory. I'm talking about scientific fact. You just conceded that science proves facts. Then you brought up gravity which I already dismissed as a bad example because its theory, not fact.

I know that science continually updates itself, but some scientific facts have been confirmed and won't change. The earth does in fact revolve around the sun and no future scientific discovery will change that.

Unless we find out that this is actually all a virtual reality, and we're being probed by aliens. :P

Look, I don't know if that is completely fact. I won't call anything an "absolute truth" because we don't know everything. What if we are wrong about revolving around the sun? Everything deserves to be analyzed with some skepticism. We can use that skepticism to launch more experiments and get more results. But it would stupid of me, at age 17, to think that I have "absolute truths" and think I know the solar system. I'm sorry, but I won't concede to having that kind of absolution. I agree that the earth revolves around the sun since information points to that conclusion, but I won't grant it that definitive title.

I see that you have a strong conviction in science so far, and I won't deny you of saying that anything is an absolute truth. By all means, go ahead if you truly believe in that. I gave my idea on how reasons are formed, and somehow we got on to this topic. It might come down to more of a personal preference than logic, to not have "absolute truths" but I believe relativism to hold more truth for me right now than absolutism. That's me. :D
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 5:10:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I already believe reality is illusory, or as you say, a virtual reality, but I dont deny that objective truth exists.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2010 5:11:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/1/2010 5:10:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I already believe reality is illusory, or as you say, a virtual reality, but I dont deny that objective truth exists.

And if that works for you, awesome. "Absolute Truth" pisses me off so I stick with relativism. :D
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.