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
28-05-2015, 09:53 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?

Nope. You try it out.
If it works, and produces results that are reliable, then it's useful, to a point.
It's "justified" by its observed and verified results.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 12:33 AM
RE: What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
(28-05-2015 09:47 PM)Spectre Wrote:  There have been rationalists that have dealt with these sorts of problems. They normally take 'reason' as axiomatic, but they have defined 'reason' differently in the past 2,000 years.

I view reason to be a part of our 'a priori' equipment that allows us to function. I have the same sort of view concerning the sense. For a believer such as myself, God alone is the giver of knowledge, and there is no causal relation between reason and obtaining knowledge, though God can use reason (I define it as logic) on any occassion to reveal a proposition to us.

Intuition is interesting.
If we intuit something however, we need to utilize language and logic in order to rationalize it.If we are too 'moved' by ineffable mystery best we do this.
Our accrued knowledge along with language seems to follow our basic needs to survive.
As for God giving knowledge; as a 'Universal causality' put thus, this seems reasonable. However Christians, with their diverse views give God all manner of simplistic traits, along with commands, which to me is a gross oversimplification of the concept.
Logic, with the demand for observation of phenomena, relevant to the initial premise for the argument, along with argument avoiding linguistic flaws (fallacies) makes for a sound pragmatic conclusion, based on how we perceive of things.
Where we assume a loving, perfect, omniscient, omnipresent ,omnipotent god, and use this as our initial premise, our argument is seriously flawed to begin with.
Our secular world view indicates life's needs through experience and I do not see idealism as contingent upon the existence of any ineffable sky mentors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 06:23 AM
RE: What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
(28-05-2015 09:47 PM)Spectre Wrote:  For a believer such as myself, God alone is the giver of knowledge, and there is no causal relation between reason and obtaining knowledge, though God can use reason (I define it as logic) on any occassion to reveal a proposition to us.

That has to be one of the saddest things I have ever read. It is no wonder that so many ex-theists say they are happier after leaving beliefs behind.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
29-05-2015, 07:06 AM
RE: What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
Reason requires no justification. Mythology, i.e. stories with no basis in fact used as truth do.

(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?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 01:02 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?

Wittgenstein said (paraphrasing heavily) that logic has no value in and of itself, it is simply a framework on which we hang facts about the world.

Logic is not any kind of justification, it is a tool, nothing more.

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 01:24 PM
RE: What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
We develop our beliefs based on emotional reactions, often arbitrarily. We then use our logic to prove to ourselves and others that our beliefs make sense, gathering and regurgitating evidence that supports them and finding ways to refute, discredit, or ignore evidence that does not.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 02:21 PM
RE: What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
(25-04-2015 05:46 AM)Chas 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?

Yes: it works. Drinking Beverage

Most of the time. Not always.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 07:24 PM
RE: What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic and our ability to do so?
It works as well as we would expect an evolved trait to work.

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
12-06-2015, 08:38 PM
RE: What is the justification for the use of reasoning/logic...
The first use of logical arguments in philosophical discussions were inspired by the Pythagoreans in a purely mathematical form. (proof by contradictions) This inspired Zeno a follower of Thales of Miletus to formulate what is controversially the first logic rule used commonly. (reductio ad absurdum)
Rules continued to evolve in forming logical arguments and proof, all the way to Aristotle who may be the father of western logic.

None of this directly shows that logic and reasoning can be trusted as a means of obtaining “truth” or knowledge. However, in mathematics proof is built off self evident rules that can be obtained from measurement and observation. The rules in mathematics are self evident. The rules are self evident because mathematics itself is grounded upon abstractions, or models, of tangible objects. For instance, the advent of numbers was a model used to represent any object.

The model was developed to create a simple way of tracking multiple objects of the same type. For example, instead of saying I have a rock, another rock, and another rock, we say I have 3 rocks. From this simple idea of abstraction to model the tangible many rules were developed. All of the rules used in logic and deduction are traced back to the simple use of “creating a symbol” or model to represent something tangible.

Even if we were to fall into a solipsism argument we would still be able to trust the use of deduction. Because if reality itself was internalized and our entire universe was illusory there would still be discoverable rules governing that universe. If those rules were not consistent there would be no cohesion. Without cohesion even an imagined reality could not be conceivable.

To simplify, reality has a structure. Even an imagined reality has a structure. Logic and reasoning are tools developed to model and understand that structure. No justification is really needed.

“ moral virtue comesabout as a result of habit.” --Aristotle

Secular Ethos
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: