What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-04-2015, 05:35 PM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2015 05:32 AM by KamojoDragon.)
What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
I was thinking about reasoning recently and I came across an issue in justifying reason and logic. In order to justify your ability to reason as legitimate, you seem to need to either use logic to justify it (a circular argument) or you would need to be unreasonable in your justification, which defeats the purpose of justifying reason to begin with.

Is the justification of our ability to reason a big problem in Philosophy, or is there a legitimate third option for justifying our ability to reason?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KamojoDragon's post
24-04-2015, 06:37 PM
RE: Reasoning 'bout reasoning
I hold that objective reality is explicable using reason axiomatically.

It seems to work well until we get to explaining humans.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
24-04-2015, 08:25 PM
RE: Reasoning 'bout reasoning
ar priori or axioms or something or other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2015, 10:42 PM
RE: Reasoning 'bout reasoning
The seeming justification and reason of other beings also plays a apart. Now there is some solipsistic elements you have to fight off to get to accepting that, but there are other pathways to reason.

Just reminded me we have a resident troll, who definitively is when looking at his posting history, who constantly talks about reasoning only being circular to justify prepositional belief. I haven't seen him around in the last few months though

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2015, 05:46 AM
RE: What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
(24-04-2015 05:35 PM)KamojoDragon Wrote:  I was thinking about reasoning recently and I came across an issue in justifying reason and logic. In order to justify your ability to reason as legitimate, you seem to need to either use logic to justify it (a circular argument) or you would need to be unreasonable in your justification, which defeats the purpose of justifying reason to begin with.

Is the justification of our ability to reason a big problem in Philosophy, or is there a legitimate third option for justifying our ability to reason?

Yes: it works. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
25-04-2015, 05:56 AM
RE: What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
1. It works well enough for most things
2. It works well enough for us to understand its limits somewhat
3. We have nothing else to use

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Hafnof's post
29-04-2015, 05:20 PM
RE: What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
(24-04-2015 05:35 PM)KamojoDragon Wrote:  I was thinking about reasoning recently and I came across an issue in justifying reason and logic. In order to justify your ability to reason as legitimate, you seem to need to either use logic to justify it (a circular argument) or you would need to be unreasonable in your justification, which defeats the purpose of justifying reason to begin with.

Is the justification of our ability to reason a big problem in Philosophy, or is there a legitimate third option for justifying our ability to reason?

No it's not circular. We don't need to justify our faculty of reason since it is our only means of acquiring knowledge. We have no other. Our senses tell us that something is there but it is our reasoning faculty that identifies and integrates this data. What we must justify is our reasoning and we do this by comparing it to reality through the process of logic or non-contradictory identification. And before you ask logic, is a corollary of the axioms and the primacy of existence which are directly observable and not deduced so the charge of circularity does not apply.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
29-04-2015, 11:27 PM
RE: What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
(24-04-2015 05:35 PM)KamojoDragon Wrote:  I was thinking about reasoning recently and I came across an issue in justifying reason and logic. In order to justify your ability to reason as legitimate, you seem to need to either use logic to justify it (a circular argument) or you would need to be unreasonable in your justification, which defeats the purpose of justifying reason to begin with.

Is the justification of our ability to reason a big problem in Philosophy, or is there a legitimate third option for justifying our ability to reason?

Komojo Dragon,

Our ability “to do so is one of the capacities of human beings,” we are all born with it, but not everyone develops the ability. The inheritance from our ancestors includes the capacity to think logically which results in better (more successful) answers to problems or questions. This type of thinking leads to more convincing arguments, than other forms of thinking.

Logic infers outcomes that contain:

Consistency: The logical response does not contradict another logical response.

Validity: The rules of proof never allow a false inference from true premises.

Completeness: If the formula used is true, it can be proven.

Soundness: Soundness has two meanings to logical systems, which means that if some formula can be proven in a system, then it is true in the relevant model/structure. A second meaning refers to arguments, which means that the premises of a valid argument are true in the actual world.

Most people agree that reason and logic are powerful tools in reaching the best answers or solutions, better than other forms of thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like oneofshibumi's post
30-04-2015, 05:27 AM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2015 05:59 AM by KamojoDragon.)
RE: What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
(29-04-2015 05:20 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(24-04-2015 05:35 PM)KamojoDragon Wrote:  I was thinking about reasoning recently and I came across an issue in justifying reason and logic. In order to justify your ability to reason as legitimate, you seem to need to either use logic to justify it (a circular argument) or you would need to be unreasonable in your justification, which defeats the purpose of justifying reason to begin with.

Is the justification of our ability to reason a big problem in Philosophy, or is there a legitimate third option for justifying our ability to reason?

No it's not circular. We don't need to justify our faculty of reason since it is our only means of acquiring knowledge. We have no other. Our senses tell us that something is there but it is our reasoning faculty that identifies and integrates this data. What we must justify is our reasoning and we do this by comparing it to reality through the process of logic or non-contradictory identification. And before you ask logic, is a corollary of the axioms and the primacy of existence which are directly observable and not deduced so the charge of circularity does not apply.

Isn't the justification for the laws of logic that they would need to be true to be false?

IE. "The Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Identity are false!"
"So they are not true and false at the same time, correct?"
"Yes..."
"And they are false and not (not false)?"
"Yes..."
"So you're telling me they are true?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 08:15 AM
RE: What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
(30-04-2015 05:27 AM)KamojoDragon Wrote:  Isn't the justification for the laws of logic that they would need to be true to be false?
No.
That sounds like the philosophical question, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
Which is a total bullshit question, and I believe most "philosophers" know that.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: