First, the reason why we talk about the paradoxes so much is that they are interesting precisely because we cannot readily solve them. We ignore all the applications of reason that does yield positive results and allows us to move forward.

Second, could you provide the list you are referring to? I have a feeling a lot of what you call paradoxes are not logically paradoxes, but oddities that need to be explained with more knowledge.

How has rationality failed in it's application to ethics?

What other "issues" have not yielded the "desired" results?

Results are results. If they aren't what you "desire" then maybe you should try to be more objective and understand that the results were never guaranteed to be desirable to the human species, or even life for that matter. So maybe that is why you don't see a "desirable" solution; because the knowledge acquired in other domains of investigation imply that there are no objective ethical rules. They are simply rules for human beings to follow in order to stay in line with the cultures they are born in.

Has rationality and logical analysis actually achieved anything at all?

Perhaps you would like to elaborate?

First, the reason why we talk about the paradoxes so much is that they are interesting precisely because we cannot readily solve them. — Chany

This assumption stays within the set of reasoning that the Mad Fool seems to be stepping outside of when he makes his argument against rationality being "all there is".

Results are results. If they aren't what you "desire" then maybe you should try to be more objective and understand that the results were never guaranteed to be desirable to the human species, or even life for that matter. — Harry Hindu

The same assumption here.

They are simply rules for human beings to follow in order to stay in line with the cultures they are born in. — Harry Hindu

Personally, I'm with Doestovesky's Underground Man: "I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too."

I ask because despite its being so fervently touted as the sparkling jewel of philosophy there's so many ''issues'' that have not yielded the desired results. — TheMadFool

Rationality is kind of the cornerstone of philosophy, though. To me, this is an important distinction. I'm interested in philosophy, and philosophical ways of thinking, but I'm also interested in other ways of thinking, and I'm interested in the pursuit of meaning and truth (which don't always set squarely within philosophical bounds). I've been one to rail against rationality on this forum, but nowadays I'm not so concerned with that as I am with how to think properly. I'm not so concerned with whether the proper way to think is philosophical or not. To suggest that philosophy needs to begin to use different modes of thinking almost seems unessisary; what good is it to convince the analytics to be artists? Why make the logicians logotherapists? The harder task seems to be to convince everyone that every mode of thinking is equally valid (equal in the measure of value that each mode brings to the human experience; this doesn't mean there isn't a hierarchical set of thinking-modes).

logical analysis of the moral landscape has utterly failed in providing a satisfactory solution to its problem — TheMadFool

Utterly failed?

That might be an overstatement... There are plenty of venerable moral and ethical solutions to many of our problems, especially in the modern world

Then there are so many (wikipedia has a long list) paradoxes that span the breadth of our knowledge framework - conundrums logic cannot handle. — TheMadFool

Paradoxes are fringe; which one cripples the utility of rationality?

Should we stubbornly continue to apply (or is it misapply) reason and logic to these problems? I think it's high time we looked at new avenues, new tools to apply to these problems. Who among us has the spark of creativity to unravel the truths hidden in these logic-resistant fields? — TheMadFool

Some truths cannot be known, some problems cannot be solved, and some horizons can never be observed. If we ever find something that is more powerful than rationality, then every rational person will adopt it!

If we ever find something that is more powerful than rationality, then every rational person will adopt it! — VagabondSpectre

*Listens to The Rite of Spring*

...

:-O

In my view, it's misconceived to look at philosophy, as an academic discipline, as something where the goal is to provide answers or solutions in the sense of "final answers" that are going to have widespread consensus agreement, so that we're basically done with the project at that point.

I believe that entirely misses the point of philosophy. The value of philosophy is rather in its critical methodology, where conclusions are challenged, where assumptions are ferreted out and undermined, and so on. Doing this in perpetuity is the project of philosophy. Finding consensus solutions is not.

This isn't to suggest that individual philosophers shouldn't reach conclusions, shouldn't aim for figuring out answers in their view. Part of philosophy's methodology is reasoning to conclusions given particular premises, of course. But we stop doing philosophy when we all agree and say "Right then. That's that. Time for lunch--and a new career."

And of course many will disagree with what I say here. They wouldn't be doing philosophy if they didn't disagree.

For example take ethics - logical analysis of the moral landscape has utterly failed in providing a satisfactory solution to its problems. — TheMadFool

Why do you think that? It was rationality applied to the question of whether it is ethical to own another human that ended the slave trade.

Surely that alone is enough to justify any area of inquiry.

The value of philosophy is rather in its critical methodology, where conclusions are challenged, where assumptions are ferreted out and undermined, and so on. Doing this in perpetuity is the project of philosophy. Finding consensus solutions is not.

This isn't to suggest that individual philosophers shouldn't reach conclusions, shouldn't aim for figuring out answers in their view.

And of course many will disagree with what I say here. They wouldn't be doing philosophy if they didn't disagree. — Terrapin Station

Is challenging conclusions, individual philosophers reaching conclusions, and widespread disagreement really the end project of philosophy? What's the point?

I kind of already explained that. The value is the critical methodology. The idea of critical thinking, of examining assumptions we might be making, of examining whether we're committing logical fallacies or not, and so on. It's a tool. It's just like the value of a screwdriver isn't a completed item and then we're done. The value of a screwdriver is that we can screw things in and out with it. We want it to be able to keep performing those actions. It's a tool to use.

The value is the critical methodology. — Terrapin Station

On the contrary, doesn't critical methodology point to value? Critical thinking needs a point, a telos. Otherwise there's no reason to think critically.

It's just like the value of a screwdriver isn't a completed item and then we're done. The value of a screwdriver is that we can screw things in and out with it. — Terrapin Station

But what are we building?

We want it to be able to keep performing those actions. It's a tool to use. — Terrapin Station

In perpetuity? Or until the task is done?

You want the tool to be able to keep working as it does in perpetuity. It's not much of a tool otherwise. You're using it to build things, say, but the thing you build isn't itself the tool in question.

Maybe you don't value tools as tools. I don't know. I do, though.

You want the tool to be able to keep working as it does in perpetuity. — Terrapin Station

What I mean is that critical thinking itself can't be the point. Critical thinking is the tool. What's the use of it?

One use of it is in identifying fallacies.

So, but why identify fallacies?

You're fine reasoning fallaciously? Or you have no idea why you wouldn't be fine with that to this point? I just want to check that before I explain it to you.

Oh, please explain away. Why wait for my permission?

You miss my point. Why should we identify fallacies?

When I say "I just want to check that before I explain it to you," I expect you to answer in good faith.

So you assume I'm not reading the words "explain it to you" sardonically?

What is "it" in that sentence?

I edited as you posted

If you're asking me a question such as "why identify fallacies" in the context of a conversation that I'd feel is worth having--and in good faith, I'd proceed as if that's what's going on--then I'd assume that you're asking non-sardonically, and that you're asking because you want me to explain something to you. If that's not what you're doing, then you should probably try proceeding in good faith, honestly, so that you're not playing games, etc. Or I'll not feel it's worth having a conversation with you.

If you're asking me a question such as "why identify fallacies" in the context of a conversation that I'd feel is worth having--and in good faith, I'd proceed as if that's what's going on--then I'd assume that you're asking non-sardonically, and that you're asking because you want me to explain something to you. — Terrapin Station

Nope, I don't want you to explain anything to me, I want to have a discussion. If you're only looking to explain things to me, then I'll be sure to not respond to any more of your posts.

But, yes, I was asking you the question "why identify fallacies? Why is that a worthwhile thing to do?" You could at this point, respond to that question (which I asked several posts ago), or you could not do so. Your choice.

Nope, I don't want you to explain anything to me — Noble Dust

Okay, then the first guideline for participating in conversations with me is to not ask me a question as if you do want me to explain something to you.

>:O

So how would you like to proceed instead of asking me "why identify fallacies"? Go back to "One use of it is in identifying fallacies." Your response to that would instead be?

That's how I'd like to proceed.

Maybe try something that would work instead next time.

Maybe try responding to me next time.