Challenging the Supremacy of Reason?

Challenging the Supremacy of Reason?

Here is why “Reason is my only master”

The most Base Presupposition begins in reason. Reason is needed for logic (logic is realized by the aid of reason enriching its axioms). Logic is needed for axiology/value theory (axiology is realized by the aid of logic). Axiology is needed for epistemology (epistemology is realized by aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized by the aid of epistemology justified assumptions/realizations/conclusions). Then when one possesses a good ontology (fortified with valid and reliable reason and evidence) they can then say they know the ontology of that thing.

So, I think, right thinking is reason. Right reason is logic. Right logic, can be used for mathematics and from there we can get to science. And, by this methodological approach, we get one of the best ways of knowing the scientific method. Activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking, which entrance us but are unavoidable and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or as In just call right thinking. So, to me, could be termed “Right” thinking, that is referring to a kind of methodological thinking. Reason is at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), to subjective (Coherence theory of truth), then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth ontop another like blocks to a wall of truth.

Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth

In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

Science is not common sense?

Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense in a relative way as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, will involve “naive realism.” Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, generally hold more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense naive realism. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Science is understanding what is, while religion is wishing on what is not.

Religion vs. Science, Don’t Confuse Beliefs

A basic outline of scientific epistemology:

Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability

*being epistemically certain, is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*

“Damien, I have a question: Who/what gives humans value?”

My response, We give value, as value is an awareness and judgment, it is an emergent property of validation; the ability to use critical thinking and logic in a useful way, to conclude worth, benefit, or good.

“Damien, All that above, is probably the most laughable rant I ever read. Reason is needed for logic? Tell me, What form of logic? There are many forms of logic btw. One can set up axioms as anyway as he/she likes and from that axioms comes this logic. The axioms need not be reasonable. In fact, some axioms are absurd. For if these axioms are presumably based on reason and reason alone, then there would’ve been no paradoxes concerning these axioms themselves. Secondly, since one can certainly change the axioms, their implication does not necessitate that they need be base on reason in the first place. The bottom line is, reason does not necessarily have to be prior to logic. Therefore your first assertion is false. Completely false.” – Challenger

My response, So did you not use reason to try and contemplate all that. lol

lol – Challenger

Epistemology is needed for ontology? Wait whaaat? Since it is possible that there are some truths that can’t be known distinct from some truths that are unknown, therefore epistemology cannot entail Ontology. Again your assertion is complete false.” – Challenger

My response, Epistemology what is knowledge and how do you know for ontology the thingness of things or what is real.

lol – Challenger

My response, Epistemology, Ontology, and Axiology in Research by Dr. Alex Lyon

lol – Challenger

My response, My Methodological Rationalism: investigate (ontology), expose (epistemology) and judge (axiology)

lol – Challenger

“A “good” ontology Lol To what extent or degree does this goodness determine? What determines this “goodness”? Is this goodness something that is arbitrary or it objectively true? If so what’s the basis? Are things just they are because they just are (circular reasoning) or are the basis for the goodness something that is ad hoc that we just simply put them whenever we want?” – Challenger

My response, “To what extent or degree does this goodness determine? What determines this “goodness”? Is this goodness something that is arbitrary or it objectively true?” So these are epistemology questions to understand the ontology involved. And “good” is an axiological judgment. “Axiology, (from Greek axios, “worthy”; logos, “science”), also called Theory Of Value, the philosophical study of goodness, or value, in the widest sense of these terms.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/axiology

“I know that you know that the Correspondence Theory is very much self-defeating. For to justify the truth of the Correspondence one has to show that the very statement itself has a correspondence to nature, which unfortunately has none. The same goes with coherence, to show the truth of coherence one has to show that the very notion of coherence coheres with a set of beliefs. But this puts the very notion problematic for beliefs are just propositional attitudes and by being such lacks any ontological worth other than our inclination itself. Pragmatic is very much problematic as well. To parse CArneades: usefulness does not necessarily entail truthfulness, therefore, pragmatism is flawed. Damn your arguments are really really flawed. Don’t get me started on showing how the Correspondence conflicts with coherence as well as that of Pragmatism etc etx. My god this is a very gullible rant you made damien noob.” – Challenger

My response, Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth

Justified assumptions ? Lol, can you please tell me what justifies the laws of logic? What justifies your justifications? What justifies the justification of the justification? Either you delve into a circular argument which is on itself a fallacy, or you delve into an infinite regress of justification to which is no better than an argument not justified at all, or you delve into an axiomatic assumption which is again spineless on its own. Remember Manchauscen’s Trillema? Emergent property of reason Lol? And who tells you that? How did you arrived to that notion? By using reason? If that is so then your whole argument is circular. It begs the question and is therefore fallacious! WtF” – Challenger

My response, The laws of logic axioms, are justified by (pragmatics and coherence theory epistemology).

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA wtf – Challenger

My response, Obviously, you don’t wish to converse with reason, so I am done trying.

“Obviously you have zero idea about the things you are writting wth.” – Challenger

My response, You are attacking and trying to belittle, not good intellectual behavior with others, shame. Think you are smarter than someone, well, help teaches them then, not start acting intellectually uncredible as a debater. Instead, start acting intellectually credible and demonstrate good teaching, not good parlor tricks or shears from a buffoon’s laugh track.

My response, What do you think your behaviors tell others?

“I care little of anyone’s behaviour. I care more of the arguments themselves. The meat of the argument, the entailments, the train of thoughts. Anyone’s opinion other than that is basically meaningless.” – Challenger

My response, Ok, so you think your smart but seem to express thinking that is unwise, as you don’t care about your behavior during discussions with others, or so you seem to say? If so, I wonder if intellectual honesty is important to you and if you know that your behaviors in debates relate to this? Some intellectual dishonesty can be subtle. For example, relevant facts and information may be purposefully omitted when such things contradict one’s hypothesis or facts may be presented in a biased manner or twisted to give misleading impressions. And, if there is no respect between both parties then we are not having a civil thus intellectual argument you are making emotional non-civil arguments and matching behavior. Thus, do not seem to express a truly honest truth seeker intellectualism but instead an emotional pseudo-intellectual.