"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."
T.S. Eliot
Four Quartets: Little Gidding: V

Friday, September 10, 2010

Unfounded Rationality Found

I have hereto rejected the transcendent in favour of the imminent as the basis for [my understanding and/or belief in] reality, and for what can form a ground of value. The transcendent often suffers from the fact that it cannot be measured scientifically, and thus could be a trick of the mind... poor biological programming if you will. Certainly not a solid foundation for universal truths.

That is not to say that the transcendent is not a type of truth, it's just that it's a subjective truth, and thus "true" in the same sense as experiencing things that may not be there. It is true to say that one experiences something, but truths that are not self evident are really only beliefs. I cannot find the transcendent in rational a priori reasoning. It can only be verified  by some people in some a posteriori ways. Thus, the transcendent is hardly a solid foundation from which to build the foundation of one's reality. Or perhaps that is some shortcoming in the scope of reason, as "reason" has broadened over the centuries. Or perhaps I am deficient in some way.

Why do I use rational judgement? Won't the only thing I find with this method be things that fit within its scope, namely rationality and logic? At the surface it seems most plausible that it is because I live in reality (whether I perceive it accurately or not), and so logic shows truths which reveal indisputable parts reality to me. It's a practical tool. But why value practicality? In fact, practicality has built within it the concept of value hierarchy and assumptions about what is "good." So I have the "defining function defining itself again" problem again.

I'll break down my conditions for success:

  1. It must define a ground for value, or provide another paradigm to justify agency (I will write a post on this in a few days)
  2. The end result must be one that I understand
  3. I can understand in a variety of ways, but the most reliable is intellectual because it has the capacity to be coherent and irrefutable
It then follows that rational thought is the most reliable way to approach this issue, though it is not necessarily what will bring the correct answer. It just has the highest likelihood of success based on the conditions outlined above.

3 comments:

  1. I don't think I've read such intelligent philosophical discussion since I finished my degree. I'm suddenly beginning to realize how much I miss it. Thank you for writing this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Awww, thanks! n.n

    If you want to get involved in the ideas, by all means please challenge them! They're all very raw and unpolished right now (clearly), so I could probably use the perspective.

    I'm also curious what Beth and Karen think as they could both probably nearly demolish and train of thought I give. ^.~

    ReplyDelete
  3. Heh. I certainly want to sit down with you for an hour or two and just talk. I'm reading carefully, and have many strong opinions which this comment box feels too narrow to contain.

    Meanwhile, I'll point you here, because I think its line of reasoning would interest you.

    ReplyDelete