Is Reason Truly Reliable?

[Chronos]

Logical operators are needed: "false = false", "true = true". From there, a logical construct begs the question. If I run into a wall and the wall breaks my nose [I have done this], I am forced to assume the wall knows at least as I about reality. My nose agrees. I do not know the precise nature of the 'wall'. I do, however, know I would rather use your nose than mine to test the theory again.

 

[Philocrat]

Logical operators are needed: "false = false", "true = true". From there, a logical construct begs the question. If I run into a wall and the wall breaks my nose [I have done this], I am forced to assume the wall knows at least as I about reality. My nose agrees. I do not know the precise nature of the 'wall'. I do, however, know I would rather use your nose than mine to test the theory again.

At least you know that you are quantitatively and logically relating to something...that's the beauty of reason!

 

[Jack Martinelli]

Logic that works is that which represents phenomena. statements that do not represent are not testable.

E.g.,

"This statement is false."

Doesn't represent any phenomena & is obviously untestable. It doesn't work. Although it appears to represent itself, "it" is purely abstract. I.e., threre is no *Semantic Ground* for the statement to stand on.

This is the nature of "pre-logic". -- The thinking that preceeds the constructions of axioms.

 

[Perspectives]

People! GET REAL, Reason is but a tool to enable us to navigate reality. Reality is but a perception upon which we base the understanding of our lives. reason is based on a set of rules that we derive form our understanding of reality. Got it.

If we perceive reality with but a slim set of truths then we can only derive a slim set of reason. we can only properly address a that which are equipt to address.

 

[the_truth]

Never mind all this jargon, reason is extremely simple.

Pick up a pencil and drop it.

If you do this 20 times and believe it will do the same thing next time you do it you are being reasonable as you have reason to believe it will do the same thing the 21st time you drop it.

 

[kcballer21]

I mean sure you can deny axioms and be a nihilist but you would have no other option but to be comatose, lest you be a hypocrite.
*Nico

I agree, but if someone is a nihilist, what do they care if they're a hypocrite? It seems that label would only have meaning to someone that accepts the axioms in the first place.

Also, what happens when we distinguish rationality from reason? I mean, if we are talking about using reason, are we implying that we are being rational? Doesn't a nihilist use reason to determine that being rational isn't all it's cracked up to be? It seems that reason is inherent and that instead rationalism is what the topic should be about.