Through reason, philosophy first attempts to answer questions bearing on such things as the actuality of existence, concepts of spirituality and physicality, the structure of the universe, the evidence of God, concepts of time and space, and goes on to examine ideas of good and evil, as well as abstract concepts such as ‘the beautiful’, or ‘freedom’, their value and true meaning. Philosophy also embraces the realm of moral and ethical concepts: the importance of gender issues, the necessity or otherwise of social, scientific, and political ethics.
Taking only the first of these individual existence by a long and thorough process of reasoning which has come to be known as ‘Cartesian doubt’
Where philosophy is concerned, it is impossible to overestimate the importance of the human power of reasoning.
And how does my dear Monooq plan on doing this so his reason accurately reflects what’s likely to happen in the world? (Besides the usual circular ). Hmmm???
dear marie, there are a few ways i play to do this. you might even have guessed them. personally, i have reasons to say the best way to predict what’ll happen is to know what has happened. but i’m no quine, and i think theres some merit to the apriori use of reason. just draw inferences, from the world, or your head, and test them in both. you’ll find the proper use of reason. they should all work to do whatever is needed better than less-good ones, explaining, or whatever. you might not, but people should.
and so what is circular?
Er…is Monooq attempting to conflate a priori and empirical truths? “What has happened†depends on experience—not necessarily Monooq’s own experience—nevertheless, empirical. Yet, he also mentions a priori use of reason, and continues on to intuition. I gather he means to use both self-evident truths and empirical truths, no?
In any case, not bad for a start. Can Monooq expound a bit and, perhaps, provide an example?
P.S. my bad, no circular.
whitelotus, reason in the abstract will self destruct, like hume said. you are using reason to try and debunk reason. unfortunately, you are using the abstract version to try and debunk the version i put forth in the first post. (which you should read again) and it certainly isn’t the metaphysical liebniz’ sufficient reason for that rock being there or anything.
if you find reasons for thinking reasons should be left out of judgements thats fine, but you won’t have elimanated this ‘reason’.
so while your post drifts off the esoteric deep end, ill try to bring you back, and say that it doesn’t make sense to deny this defining human attribute, and that EVERYONE is controlled by pragma because noone goes against things they think they ought not to. and this can’t be limited to practical matters, but anything.
“The purpose of inquiry is to achieve agreement among human beings about what to do, to bring about consensus on the ends to be achieved and the means to be used to achieve those ends. Inquiry that does not achieve co-ordination of behaviour is not inquiry but simply wordplay.”
??
So, my charming Monooq has decided not to come out and address my post. I miss you, babe, even though you’ve called me stupid.
dear marie, i’m not sure what you want an example of…? my reason? so since i think it would be painfully obvious to give a scientific example, or empirical, or whatever, (which is why i wondered at your question)… i’ll go out on a limb and show the use reason in a value judgement. and how the value judgement is evaluated based on those reasons for holding it. here goes:
eg. burning the wife and all the other ‘objects’ of the husband’s after he dies is wrong. (still happens believe it or not)
- this is my value judgement…
my reasons: (1) you’d need a bigger fire
this is what your conclusion should be: that thats a shabby use of reason on monooq’s part, and that there are many better reasons. its not the conclusion you dub ‘true’ or ‘false’… its how you got there. and not that i’m wrong… i’m just less right.
-and anything that draws back to what you think is a culturally defined value judgement (and can’t be touched because you are a relativist) CAN infact be evaluated on the reasons each has for their value judgement. (by looking at the context and so on).
so there marie, do your worst. and by the way, there is hope for you yet. i’m sorry for calling you stupid. i’m sure its not your fault. ahem, i didn’t mean it.
whitelotus, you’re right, you definately didn’t debunk anything. i took you for trying to though, in saying that the principum was groundless. my reason doesn’t require that there be reason for a rock being in a certain spot… thats ridiculous. metaphysical… i’m talking about it in the context of a judgement, or theory. human reason. the grounding is we have the ability to use it, we ought to.
and so here is where you became esoteric:
genius, that is part of the principum. that there is a reason for everything. even a rock being there. i’m clearly not talking about that abstract crap. i’m talking about human reasons in judgements. because. that is the only reason there is. the rest is crap.
there are reasons for me saying ‘it ought’. there is reason in value judgements. and thats exactly what i’m doing.
that was esoteric. i have no idea what you’re saying. if you’re dubbing this defining human faculty as groundless, then i object.
rather, it is the usefulness of the conclusion (for some purpose) that makes the conclusion “true” or “false” (more or less useful).
it’s like saying that a terrible piece of music is rated as such by the quality of the piano.
in the fire example I would find your conclusion appropriate but for a different reason. (banal point I know… sorry)
it is only when your reasoning became apparent (when a bigger fire made it self available) that our different reasonings would become an issue (my reasoning being that I (but perhaps not others) want to exist in a world where we extend our sympathies to the wives of the deceased)
but that is because you would now have, under deifferent circumstances, a different conclusion from me where we once agreed.
as for the situation where, in the original non-burning scenario you say to my face: “rob, i dont want to burn her because i dont want to waste wood for a fire” all I can say is that I find your reasons moraly repulsive, and that I wish you were part of a community that thought of widows differently.
I’m hammering out to much on what was I guess meant to be a humorous example… so if I’m missing something, perhaps a more conventional scenario would clear things up.
but yeah, it is the reasoning in practice that makes it, from my perspective, good or bad. i dont see how your reasoning was “shoddy”… it was just reasons that I don’t share for actions that in that case I would.
and that is where the “use” of reason should be the key… the resulting action situated in a specific situation with certain goals in mind… that’s the test… of “reason”, because all “reason” is is a tool for achieving goals (in a very wide wide sense)… not a faculty that represents reality for us…
No. I’m satisfied. Thanks for elucidating. Just wanted to see your last post and see what you say.
you’ll get the bill in the mail.
Lol !! You’re not that great !!
A nice rendition of moral reasoning leading towards substantive form. Thanks Rob.
not familiar with the terminology but OK.
i’m parroting US Pragmatism i think… well some of the more recent stuff anyway…
Makes sense. I’m vaguely familiar with pragmatism (James ). But you’re point is very much related to substantive reasoning which is, I think, grounded in ordinary, practical use of reasoning as opposed to formal reasoning. 'Wish I could elaborate more but I’m kinda tired at the moment. If you want to continue tomorrow, let me know.
thats what the principum is. abstract, metaphysical reason. we live in the best of all possible worlds. crap.
its pretty tough to deny it as a faculty, like capability, like smelling or talking. it must be impossible to do as defining. and who knows what you mean by groundless anyways.
i’d say the ball is in your court for fleshing out that above ridiculousness.
and rob, this is where i break off with you. i could care less if teh conclusion is useful. hell, burning the wives of deceased husband’s may be useful there. but i won’t say its right. and your piano metaphor is a terrible one.
and in the fire example, your reason for the value judgement was another value judgement. you shouldn’t do that. if you can evaluate value judgements, you at least certainly can’t do it like that properly.
and why think of reason as a tool? atleast, as a tool that can’t represent reality to us. you should read Kant.