When people ask, ‘what is your reason for doing X?’ They are asking ‘what caused you to do X?’ When people look for reasons, they are looking for causes of things.
dude, what is your point?
Monooq,
Perhaps that he is the Pinnacle of Causes.
Dunamis
Cause and effect pinnacle?
sponge bob’s house…
“who lives in a pinnacle under the sea…”
-Imp
Absolutely! You said it very well! The reason is the motive which the cause supplied. Wherefore and wherefrom causes bubble up to transmit motive and thereby become it’s reason is - and I have good reasons for thinking so - based on the Uncertaintly Principle of quantum theory which is now circumvented by motive to make it more certain.
If only Planck or Heisenberg would be alive they’d be sending me e-mail! 
I think the definition of reason is important in philosophy, because when we ask for ‘reasons’, we are essentially asking for ‘causes’. So I am asking, could there be a fundamental cause(s) or as I call it fundamental belief that we all share? Nietzsche said, philosophy is essentially an expression of a philosopher’s prejudice. Their entire philosophy is their attempt to justify their prejudice.
We all have our prejudices, and those prejudices stem from nature (our genes) and nurture (the way we were brought up). All our belief system essentially comes from nature and nurture.
“We have no reason, only prejudice” - PoR
To state it somewhat crudely, “reason” is both the verb and noun of how we interpret “cause” - unless it be “necessity” which preempts the “process” of reason because you may already be dead in that interval you “ratiocinate” necessity into REASON.
…also, weren’t you the one who called Nietzsche an idiot and a lunatic in some of your past posts. Shouldn’t he be somewhat beneath your contempt for any justification you may endorse??
Pinnacle of Reason, you’re so intelligent and brilliant, how can you agree with Nietzsche when he says, “Philosophy is essentially an expression of a philosopher’s prejudice?”
Prejudice is an opinion for or against something without substantial basis. Philosophy cannot be about a philosopher’s prejudice because true philosophy arises out of an open mind, a philosopher cannot be prejudiced because as soon as a philosopher finds he is wrong he will change his viewpoint in the face of truth or reality. So Nietzsche has to be wrong. No offence.
A philosopher has reason but no prejudice regarding philosophy. A philosopher can be wrong about his opinion though but he still cannot be prejudiced. If a philosopher’s philosophy arose out of a prejudice there would be no philosophy and hence no science. A philosopher can be prejudiced because we all have our irrationalities and prejudices in life but a philosopher will not philosophize regarding these prejudices because he’ll know his opinion lacks basis or is irrational.
Indeed. It should seem they would be two different things, right?
Perhaps. Yet the adorable question lingers, of what it is truly
that shall constitute “substantial basis” for philosophical opinions.
monad
I agree that we have instinct and reason. come on, let’s move on. the past is dead and buried.
BeenaJain
Now, that’s a passionate reply! You’ve got to try to keep a cool head when talking philosophy. I sense you made a slight error.
“A philosopher has reason but no prejudice regarding philosophy.”
My opening opinion, which many including monad agree is that the quest for reason is the quest for cause.
When you suggest, philosopher has reason but no prejudice, that give rise to an impossibility.
How can a philosopher, a man, have infinite progression of reason? if I put it this way.
Situation A justified by reason A, reason A justified by reason B… reason x justified by reason y…
A person can not have infinite series of reasons. The progression of reason must cease at a point. And the point at which reason ceases is called prejudice for that point can not be justified through reason.
For Aristotle, he believes happiness is the ultimate good. Happiness is his prejudice. for the French revolutionaries, freedom for the mass is the ultimate good which is beyond the realm of reason. And that which lies in the beyond is prejudice.
The basis of all rational decisions is an irrational belief. - PoR
I made no errors when I said that, a philosopher has reason but no prejudice regarding philosophy. And when I said that, I never suggested that, “a philosopher, a man, [can] have infinite progression of reason” that would make one God. You’re confusing between mistake and prejudice. A philosopher can make a mistake but will not philosophize regarding a prejudice he holds because having an open mind, a philosopher will know intuitively when he’s irrational and when not.
As for Aristotle’s belief about happiness, I’m sure being the brilliant philosopher he was, he would have known that in our world, happiness only exists in relation to sorrow and so gets duly defined, therefore, it could not be the ultimate good for it would change in our changing universe. Don’t try to kid yourself. For all others, a bad person knows he is bad just like a good person knows he is good but they both cannot change, that’s the way they are and they know that, just like you are more brilliant than most others here and know that. Now that’s funny because even though, “Change is the law of nature” but we cannot change ourselves. Funny!
so will you claim that descartes was no philosopher? he proved mathematically that the church was wrong and that his analytical geometry and galileo’s astronomy were correct yet rene appeased the church and never published the “truth”…
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … sc&start=0
-Imp
Post resurrection.