A distressing thought: is reason a valid tool with which to evaluate beliefs? I doubt that any argument could be made to the effect that reason is such a tool, without begging the question.
I am somewhat peeved by the last sentence of your comment, as I have memories of unpleasant conflicts arising from uncalled for arguments made by myself against you. But that was a over a year and a half ago, I hope I've matured somewhat since then. I think intend this paragraph to be a sincere, but vague, apology.
Let me attempt to disambiguate what I said. The first two denotations you have posted are close to what I meant. The third one is not what I meant, and the last one is only relevant in that religious tenets fall under the category of what I meant by "belief," but the last one is not the definition of belief that I intended. By belief I am referring to my relation to certain statements. As in, there are certain statements whose truth I assent to. The question is, are these statements whose truth I assent to actually true? To determine if a belief is correct means to determine if I really should trust the truth of a certain statement. Take for example the belief that the moon is not made of green cheese. To evaluate this belief would be to determine if it is true that the moon is made of green cheese.
I notice that you make reference to the basic principles of reason. The question raised by my original post is: what justification do you have for trusting the basic principles of reason? I am claiming that there is no sound justification.
I don't hold any grudge or hard feeling toward you due to my experiences in Madison. If anything, those arguments taught me that life, seriously, is not fair and that there are people who will want to hurt me, and I must decide whether or not I'll allow it. I'm glad that you've grown, and I know I have as well. I've developed a thicker skin and sadly enough, a harder heart.
And in my final statement about the bloodbath, I assumed that my vocabulary and my non-academic background would make it impossible for me to make a clear concise statement that would cause any thought.
Personally, I trust instinct. Reason is great and I use it daily to make basic decisions and inferences, but I rely on instinct and feeling rather than logic. Many situations have taught me to trust my gut as opposed to what "should" or "should not" be based on normal standards.
Let me attempt to disambiguate what I said. The first two denotations you have posted are close to what I meant. The third one is not what I meant, and the last one is only relevant in that religious tenets fall under the category of what I meant by "belief," but the last one is not the definition of belief that I intended. By belief I am referring to my relation to certain statements. As in, there are certain statements whose truth I assent to. The question is, are these statements whose truth I assent to actually true? To determine if a belief is correct means to determine if I really should trust the truth of a certain statement. Take for example the belief that the moon is not made of green cheese. To evaluate this belief would be to determine if it is true that the moon is made of green cheese.
I notice that you make reference to the basic principles of reason. The question raised by my original post is: what justification do you have for trusting the basic principles of reason? I am claiming that there is no sound justification.
Reply
And in my final statement about the bloodbath, I assumed that my vocabulary and my non-academic background would make it impossible for me to make a clear concise statement that would cause any thought.
Personally, I trust instinct. Reason is great and I use it daily to make basic decisions and inferences, but I rely on instinct and feeling rather than logic. Many situations have taught me to trust my gut as opposed to what "should" or "should not" be based on normal standards.
Is that a satisfactory response?
Reply
Leave a comment