Reason justifying it's own reasonings.

[Willowz]

I think this process happens very often. Somebody starts with some assumptions or premises and his or her reason is justifying these premises. I mean words are circular after all and if you open any book on theology and/or God you might get my point.

Here's the question. How do we avoid unnecessary rationalisation? It's so useless and such a waste of time.

Is science the answer to this epistemic problem? Can you actually think "scientifically"?

 

[wuliheron]

"Unnecessary" implies it is useless or at least extraneous and a pragmatic approach is preferred.

 

[muzak]

What do you mean? I don't know much philosophy/logic. Are you asking how do we justify logic? I don't think we can. If we try to justify logic by using logic, that'd just be circular. If we try to invent some higher form of logic, we still have the same issue or trying to justify that. Invent an even higher form of logic or use that higher form to justify itself? I think we just take it for granted or just have blind faith in it, logic I mean.

I think most premises come from induction stuff and some from deduction.

 

[Evo]

This thread does not meet philosophy guidelines.