I don't think there's anything that contradicts the principles of rationality in quantum entanglement but I get what you mean viz. that there are some observable facts about the world that defy reason, in effect giving us a good reason to doubt reason itself. However, notice that this is still a rational thing to do i.e. we're still using reason when we make this judgement. Also, although I'm not a physicist, this whole idea of quantum physics not conforming to rational principles like the law of non-contradiction is merely a misconception, an unfortunate effect of poor analogies. — TheMadFool
Could you define reason/rationality? — Pinprick
Saying that it’s reasonable to doubt reason in certain circumstances is circular, especially so if you’re trying to make the point that the reasonable thing to do is trust reason. — Pinprick
Reason is that faculty that discovers, isolates, and prescribes methods/ways of thinking that are either guaranteed to lead you to the truth or, at the very least, take you as close as possible to it. — TheMadFool
Perhaps you can shed some light on it. — TheMadFool
. It must be a paradox then - we placed complete trust in reason and the first thing it does is undermine that trust. You could look at it pessimistically and call it circular or optimistically and applaud reason for its fairness and honesty. — TheMadFool
Ok, that would be an idealist conception of reason as a critical faculty. However reason is also the capacity to communicate with other individuals whose orientation may range from antagonistic to co-operative in the pursuit of survival. In that context, truth may very well take a back seat to expediency, propitiation, or any number of other constraints. This is I think a good example of the "ivory tower" criticism often leveled at philosophy. — Pantagruel
Reason is associated with logic so often because of logic’s usefulness in finding truth, but we aren’t always interested in finding the truth. — Pinprick
So, more to the OP, a skeptic may desire to maintain his skepticism, and therefore doubt reason, which would be considered reasonable, but “truth” may not be his aim. — Pinprick
Now, as I say, there's no real corresponding term in modern philosophy, because avidya has morally normative connotations. — Wayfarer
No one knowingly does evil — Socrates
But in Buddhism, indeed in the 'perennial philosophies' generally, there is the idea that the enlightened sees things as they truly are, because their insight is no longer tarnished by self-interest, greed, passion, grasping, and so on. — Wayfarer
But what modern science omits is precisely that sense of moral normativity which is found in Buddhism and other forms of the perennial traditions, because it is solely concerned with objective matters of fact — Wayfarer
. As per the Buddhist, morally-tinged concept of avidya and also according to Socrates, having knowledge i.e. overcoming our ignorance should suffice to make us good people. — TheMadFool
However, the way god is defined suggests that no amount of knowledge, omniscience even, will suffice to make us good, in divine terms - omnibenevolent. What's up with that? — TheMadFool
Socrates had reached such a stage of intellectual clarity that he literally could not act against reason, but it's fairly plain that almost no-one is like that in reality — Wayfarer
I don't see the necessary connection between knowledge and morality. — TheMadFool
The "ivory tower" abode of philosophers is a different kettle of fish. I believe it's when philosophers remove themselves from reality and isolate themselves in a world of abstractions and thus absorbed give an air of aloofness to those not similarly occupied.
That said, taking into account the notion of zombies, I don't see how people who thinks zombies make sense (that's all of us I think) can ever accuse anyone of being in an "ivory tower" of abstract thought. Zombies aren't persons, right? What do you have to say about that? — TheMadFool
That’s because in today’s world, the link has been severed. Knowledge is, as the New Left said, mainly instrumental - know-how, knowing how to achieve an outcome, prediction and control. It is techne, not gnosis. We’re excellent at it, but meanwhile the sword of Damocles hangs over our entire world. — Wayfarer
You see, the genuine philosophers, of all cultures, tell us that our whole conception of ‘what is real’ is faulty. That’s what you were getting at in the ‘all is illusion’ thread. Consider the allegory of the Cave, which claims that most people - hey, he’s talking about us - are ‘prisoners chained in a cave’. We don’t even know what is real. We think we do, because everyone we know is like us.
Real philosophers actually are prophets, only more subtle.
I rather like the science fiction writing of Philip K Dick. He’s always flirting with the ‘reality as illusion’ idea. Something happens which suddenly pierces the veil - the Truman Show is another example from popular culture - and we realise we’ve been living in an illusory world. It’s like we open a door to a vast world, and realise that we’ve been living in a single room all our lives, telling ourselves there’s nothing outside. Actually philosophy has to do that, otherwise what is it other than chatter?
When Gautama realised supreme enlightenment, his first impulse was not to teach, not to say anything. Legend has it the God Brahma came and implored him to teach ‘for the sake of the many’. Gautama agreed, but only because, he said, there were ‘those with but a little dust in their eyes’. They might understand. But the vast majority never would, because they’re too attached to their misery to want to give it up.
I'm not sure what your zombies comment means? Can you elaborate? — Pantagruel
don't know if people realize this or whether it's being forced down our throats by countless media representations but zombies aren't considered persons - you can, in fact you're supposed to, kill them and there are no consequences for doing that.
What's missing in zombies that make them non-persons? They're mindless. It's odd then to accuse someone, say a philosopher, of living in an ivory tower when he's actually being mindful. :chin: — TheMadFool
I do not get it. — Pantagruel
If what makes a man is a dick, does having a huge dick make you a non-man? — TheMadFool
I think the argument is that the ivory-tower intellectual is not actually being mindful because he or she is neglecting critical components of practical reality. So this form of "heightened rationality" is ipso facto actually irrational..... — Pantagruel
So is the nature of reason predominantly inclusive, or exclusive? — Pantagruel
Firstly, in what sense do you mean inclusive or exclusive?
Secondly, it appears that I'm guilty of loose terminology. There's rationality - a frame of mind - which recommends skepticism/doubt and there's logic - a method to truth which supposedly gets you there without fail. Rationality advises us to be skeptical and logic attempts to reduce error - the difference between what we think is the truth and what the truth actually is. — TheMadFool
Well, it was a question.
To me it is clear that "rationality" is a much larger concept than logic, and one which operates at both the individual and the social level. And there are many kinds of truths. Social truths can be factually inaccurate, yet still functional. As the history of humanity testifies. — Pantagruel
Isn't the skeptic's position that nothing can be known, even if paradoxical, the uncomfortable truth? — TheMadFool
I suppose. But if the skeptic arrives at this “truth” by using reason, how can he then cast doubt on reason? Regardless, my point was that we are often biased, and can use reason for purposes other than finding truth. That is, if you define reason as being dependent on the goal. — Pinprick
This attitude of doubt toward rationality reveals an important truth, to wit that it's just one method of removing doubt and there may be other, possibly better, methods out there to tackle the problem of doubt. — TheMadFool
All the incremental objects of the nature of an AI remain an AI, but the thesis on rationality implies a methodology better than, hence necessarily different from, rationality. The former is a consistent equivalence in itself, the latter is not, therefore they have no equivalence to each other. — Mww
It does not follow merely from the skepticism of one rationality, that another replacement methodology for it, is possible. Such methodology may very well be possible, but its possibility is given from a different kind of entity, rather than something so lackadaisical as skeptical analysis of the method already in play, by the possessor of it. Besides, how would a human rationality ever understand a rationality other than the human kind, and because he is necessarily at a complete loss to understand it due to the very limitations of his own, how would he ever claim the betterment of it? — Mww
we're repeatedly cautioned to be skeptical when faced with claims people make — TheMadFool
Methinks it's exactly when we doubt our method's capabilities that we look for something else. No? — TheMadFool
Skepticism regarding the contents, or the objects, with which the method may be concerned, is hardly the same as the skepticism directed at the method itsel — Mww
Not in the view from this armchair, no. It’s not so fine a line between doubting a methods capabilities, and using the method such that its intrinsic capabilities are misguiding. If it is possible the method doesn’t correspond to its conditions, and if from that it is impossible to tell whether it is the method itself or the agent’s use of it that serves as causality for the discord, there is no proper justification for faulting the method alone. — Mww
Besides...how would one, as a human rational agent, ever be able to prove some alternative methodology to rationality, that isn’t itself an exposition given from the very unique and innate human condition it was meant to replace? In other words, what profit can there ever be in looking for that which the means for looking immediately makes the ends looked for, impossible to find? Hence the use of lackadaisical, tacitly indicating the absurdity of looking for impossible ends as opposed to correcting extant means. — Mww
Nevertheless.....benefit of the doubt: what form do you think an alternative to the human rational method would take? — Mww
the problem is that there is no proper justification to not to fault the method. — TheMadFool
Demonstrate the impossibility of the absence of another method, different to rationality — TheMadFool
Do you think there's a good reason to believe on faith and faith alone? — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.