June 16, 2005
-
Ok, so I’ve long held contradictory views . You see, I can’t help but
be a sceptic, and a very extreme one at that. The fact is, our system
of logic and reason ultimately boils down to certain principles that
are completely unjustified. To use the most clear and impact-full
example, the Law of Non-contradiction is one such principle. When I was
growing up, I was always fed the term “self-evident” as and
explanation, but what does that really mean? It mean “this principle
can only be shown to be true once we assume it’s true.” But since
everyone believes the Law of Non-contradiction regardless, we all just
let it slide. The truth is, according to the rules set forth by the
very principles we are weighing, it is impossible to judge if things
like the Law of Non-contradiction are actually true. They are, if you
will, selected arbitrarily: at least as far as logic is concerned.So you see my contradiction. I believe in all sorts of things: absolute
truth, God, absolute morality, but I also couldn’t help but believe
that I couldn’t know these things certainly. The problem was, there was
no way I could make myself consistent by trying to live by and fully
accept my extreme scepticism. I wouldn’t have been able to handle it.
My whole being rejected it. And the more I thought about this, I
realised that this is true of everyone at some level. We all submit to
logic, and the Law of Non-contradiction. Even “I exist, therefore I am”
has it built in.The question I ended up asking myself is, why? It’s certainly not
reason that leads us to it, because reason is a useless against this
extreme scepticism. And then it struck me, we are emotionally attached
to logic and reason. Reason is built into us, with a sort of emotional
gag reflex in place, should we consider not using it. I suppose, like
in all things, we should praise God for this. He has designed us to be
reasonable as a rule, and it is a beautiful system, all stemming from a
handful of seemingly unassuming premises that are simply set to
auto-believe.This does raise some questions though. If reason is a construct of God,
how does God himself function? I think this question can be
answered. Without going into my reasons (you can work those out
yourself), I would say that God does not use reason but simply is; that
is to say: as reason flows through time, from premise to conclusion
using limited understanding as a basis, God does not think, but simply
is: his complete thought existing.Comment with rejections or reaction, I’m really quite curious about what people will think about this one.
Comments (3)
well Mr. Jones, I was think of you of late, and was going to ask you how ``your mind saved you,`` As you once told me long ago.
As some sort of response to this post, and i`m sure you of all people will forgive my skepticism, but could not this ``emotional attachment to logic and reason`` simply be breed into you? for i`m sure you have found many, as i have, that seem to have no disposition towards it and rather prefer irrationality and need reason to be explained to them, (then there are still some that even after education choose to remain against or indifferent to it) this leading me to assert that it is more education that anything.
I think my allegiances lie closer to skepticism and with the seemingly irrationality of the origins on reason.
Those people, who claim not to reason, or claim not to like reason, do it never the less. For example, cause and effect. Cause and effect, and the belief in it, is a thing of reason. You reason that since doing a thing had a result once, it will have that result again. Even a small baby will reason on that level. If they if they pout their lips, their mother will know they want a bottle; if they lift their hands, someone will pick them up. This is not a thing of education. It is simple pragmatism for a child to do these things, granted, but never the less they reason out that they ought to do one thing over another to achieve the goal they want to achieved.
Even the hardest sceptic will eat food believing it will fill their stomach.
nope cause and effect can simply be know through experience, and used because it's practical (and seemly true). Any a baby clearly only knows those things through experence or perhaps conditioning. Using your mind doesn't prove the existence of things like the laws of logic.
Also i wouldn't say that the person that is thinking is necessarily using the laws of logic, they are 'reasoning' but not necessarily using reason. I think you have a too broad of a defintion here. ex simply because plants grow towards the sun doesn't mean they exibit a sense of reason in doing so. (there are reasons for it, but they are not using 'reason')
But a question. Do you really think that 'reason', (and by reason i mean like the laws of logic, not simply thinking or reacting), is inate? and how can you tell?
Comments are closed.