AnarchoBenchwarmer Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 http://dinnertimedebates.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-worship-of-reason.html I'm having a debate with my cousin-in-law on the merits of reason and he directed me to his blog. I have a lot of opinions about it, but I'm curious as to what you all might think. Be gentle - he's nice, but misguided, like most Mormons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Unfortunately, that reality is being perceived through a wide variety of minds and senses and in the end we cant seem to agree about reality, not because reality is in flux, but because we are. I look forward to the follow up post where he learns about science. In the end reason is not some unified proven logic that has all the answers but instead a matter of perception. Tragic So much of "reason" depends on how we believe true reality is perceived. Some only believe in a physical reality where our 5 senses and science reigns supreme in expressing the truth (aka reality). Others think our physical nature is but an illusion and what really matters are feelings, desires and thought. In a way, I embrace both of these. My physical senses are used to help me learn my physical reality and my non physical senses (thought, desire, feelings) help me to understand my non physical or spiritual reality (see 1 Cor 2:13). This is a neat sophist trick. You set forth two standards that are "extreme" and then put yourself squarely in the middle of the two and declare yourself as a reasonable person who sees things in shades of gray rather than black and white. I see these two as parts a complex whole that encompasses the entirety of my experience and that I must utilize all of them in order to gain the best understanding I can of what is actually real and therefore reasonable. I.E. Those who use logic and empiricism to determine truth are being simplistic and unreasonable. I will say as far as sophists go he is rather clever. Take the below line where he mentions the two extreme approaches: Some only believe in a physical reality where our 5 senses and science reigns supreme in expressing the truth (aka reality). Others think our physical nature is but an illusion and what really matters are feelings, desires and thought. Notice how he carefully places the word 'think' into the second sentence dealing with emotions and the word 'believe' into the first sentence which involves science. In other words those concerned with feelings/desires are 'thinkers' while people interested in science are 'believers' no different than us religious folk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Many today continue to ignorantly idolize reason without ever asking themselves. What is reason? Maligns the use of reason while using reason to identify that discussing reason without understanding what reason is, is unreasonable. Truth: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality (Oxford Dictionary) This presents an interesting problem. Reality itself is perceived through us and we don't all agree on what we perceive. After putting forth defining words as a requisite to discussing them and citing the Oxford Dictionary, claims that "reality itself is perceived" despite Oxford Dictionary defining reality as "the world or the state of things as they actually exist". Some would say spiritual manifestations are real and therefore reasonable to use to validate viewpoints or behaviors. Some would say red is blue. Some saying something doesn't make it so. Spiritual means not of matter or energy. Real means of matter or energy. Christianity is predicated on faith. The ability to validate any of its claims would destroy it. Some only believe in a physical reality where our 5 senses and science reigns supreme in expressing the truth (aka reality). Others think our physical nature is but an illusion and what really matters are feelings, desires and thought. In a way, I embrace both of these. Accepting two statements that are in opposition. Claiming to embrace the physical world as an illusion, yet authoring material in an attempt to influence said illusion. Speaking of reality as if it is up to us. In the end reason is not some unified proven logic that has all the answers but instead a matter of perception. Reason is not an answer, but a methodology for arriving at the correct answer. Religion dispenses with methodology altogether. Be gentle - he's nice, but misguided, like most Mormons. Is 2+2=4 soft or coarse? How nice somebody is has no bearing on the truth value of their words. I don't hold it against him that he was propagandized into not thinking. However, he's talking about determining truth and reality, and from an unanswerable position to an unlimited audience. To do so responsibly requires incredible rigor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnarchoBenchwarmer Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 You guys are good. I came up with similar points. Oh how I wish I could post the debate, this poor guy refuses to be shut down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysterionMuffles Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Damn guys, good job pointing out those sophist tricks. It used to be such a brainwasher, but the more I watch Stef's article deconstructions and your insights, the more I can see through the webs of BS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaVinci Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Out of curiosity why does everyone keep mentioning "sophist tricks"? This is not the first time recently I've heard that thrown out and I was wondering exactly what that entails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Out of curiosity why does everyone keep mentioning "sophist tricks"? This is not the first time recently I've heard that thrown out and I was wondering exactly what that entails. A sophist is a manipulator of language, someone who makes bad but persuasive arguments. Stefan uses a great quote of Socrates from time to time where he defines them as those who, "make the worse argument appear the better". In fact, sophist used refer to a type of teacher that used rhetoric to inspire wisdom; Socrates was the one who gave it the negative connotation through his criticism of their actual knowledge. I tend to reserve it for those who are particularly good with language such as this poster's brother, as I can respect his obvious intelligence even if he is corrupt. After a while you begin to notice patterns in the type of arguments they make, and that's what I am referring to when I say "tricks". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnarchoBenchwarmer Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 I think that one of the many, many problems with this is that he actually believes what he is writing. I think that might be more dangerous than if he were actively manipulating his audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I think that one of the many, many problems with this is that he actually believes what he is writing. I think that might be more dangerous than if he were actively manipulating his audience. Oh I don't doubt it. I'm not saying he is consciously trying to manipulate people, I'm saying that he is manipulating language to make his point. A natural consequence of adopting irrational ideas is having to invent fantasy justifications, as much for himself as for everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnarchoBenchwarmer Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 Oh I don't doubt it. I'm not saying he is consciously trying to manipulate people, I'm saying that he is manipulating language to make his point. A natural consequence of adopting irrational ideas is having to invent fantasy justifications, as much for himself as for everyone else. I think you said it best earlier: Tragic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Dean Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Maligns the use of reason while using reason to identify that discussing reason without understanding what reason is, is unreasonable. I swear to Nog that it so brilliant I want it painted on my wall.... or tattooed on my ass, I can't decide which. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts