mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
As the title says.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you have evidence for the fact, that you are rational?
- Thread starter mikkel_the_dane
- Start date
Loaded question. You're assuming I'm rational.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Does dismissing the post as silly count?
[optimistic frubal]Well, I take it as an indirect sign, that you could be that.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That yes is not evidence as such. It is you saying you have it, but you haven't actually presented it.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
It could be an emotion in effect and then we are off to the races, as to if emotions are rational.
Some clearly are ...It could be an emotion in effect and then we are off to the races, as to if emotions are rational.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, you know the drill. Burden of proof and all that jazz...
You don't have to answer.
You didn't ask for it to be presented. To present evidence all I have to do is point to the countless arguments I've made over the years that I consider rational, and point to those arguments as evidence that I am a rational person.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, that you consider it, is first personal anecdotal evidence. So by that standard someone else could consider you irrational.
True! My evidence of rationality is according to my subjective standard.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The judgement "rational" means conclusions are developed from reasons.
When I have reasons, I am certainly rational.
The tricky part is how to develop a conclusion that the reason is a reason. Then those reasons for the reasons would need to be evaluated, and the reasons for those reasons would need to be evaluated, and this could go on forever.
Practically I think 2 layers is good enough. That's engineering. Engineering knows when to stop. If I have reasons for a conclusion, and I have reasons for those reasons, that's good for me.
Although a mathematician or philosopher might argue, it's never enough. But, if that's their argument I would ask for the reasons they used to make that conclusion, and then I would ask for the reasons for those reasons, and the reasons for those reasons, etc... If the argument cannot sustain itself based on its own premise, then the argument fails. This means there must be an end to the layers of questioning because the argument against is self-referentially flawed.
Therefore yes, I have evidence of my own rationality if I have reasons, because the alternative is not valid. How many layers of questioning I choose to employ to justify those reasons is irrelevant as long as I have reasons, that is evidence.
When I have reasons, I am certainly rational.
The tricky part is how to develop a conclusion that the reason is a reason. Then those reasons for the reasons would need to be evaluated, and the reasons for those reasons would need to be evaluated, and this could go on forever.
Practically I think 2 layers is good enough. That's engineering. Engineering knows when to stop. If I have reasons for a conclusion, and I have reasons for those reasons, that's good for me.
Although a mathematician or philosopher might argue, it's never enough. But, if that's their argument I would ask for the reasons they used to make that conclusion, and then I would ask for the reasons for those reasons, and the reasons for those reasons, etc... If the argument cannot sustain itself based on its own premise, then the argument fails. This means there must be an end to the layers of questioning because the argument against is self-referentially flawed.
Therefore yes, I have evidence of my own rationality if I have reasons, because the alternative is not valid. How many layers of questioning I choose to employ to justify those reasons is irrelevant as long as I have reasons, that is evidence.
Yes, well no. I mean some of my decisions turn out fantastic. Like the result of superior mental processes.
However, I don't know if that means I'm rational or just lucky.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The point is that in practice it can work but as for justified true belief as for classical knowledge it could run into Agrippa's trilemma.
Does the fact that I have survived numerous dangerous situations indicate that I was rational as to the dangers involved and also as to my competence and abilities so as to not come to harm? Or was it all down to luck - even if such occurred so many times?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
If I say yes, is it rational that you would follow it with a challenge to provide the evidence then?
I'd I say no, is it rational to agree without evidence, the answer no is the correct response?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
But that is self-defeating because if it's true the point you're making cannot be justified. And that means, you have no point at all.
