Primal

Actually foundationalism has an answer: that there is more to verification then reason and that some ideas are self-verifying. Constructivism on the other hand must make a leap into absurdity.

The reason doesn't require data, it is, data (by this I mean empirical data) comes later. Perhaps the reasoning is in place before, or somewhat in place and only activated sooner. The question is somewhat senseless as asking "Well if hardware processes software, where did the hardware get the software that allowed it to process hardware?"

John Page

This was with respect to verification of the principle of verification.

Primal:
Could you clarify whether you consider foundationalism incompatible with relativism, because that is what you seem to be proposing when saying "some ideas are self-verifying".

Even if we were to agree that Constructivism is absurd that wouldn't necessarily invalidate it. Reality is absurd - what about all those neutrinos passing through your body, for example? Isn't the concept of a spherical earth absurd without the notion of gravity?

This in response to my sub-topic of how we acquire knowledge, to which you replied "Reason".

You seem to be saying that reason is a potential process that executes when fed data. Is this reasonable?

BTW, I do not claim that knowledge is merely sense data - clearly some knowledge is the result if analysis and comparison of sense data. BTW, I also reject your labeling me as a positivist, IMO a poor defence of your "self-evident" truths.

Cheers, John

DeanWCasa

Hi,

The first relevant book I read on epistemology was Introduction to Objectivist Epistemologyby Ayn Rand. I would also supplement that with The Romantic Manifestoalso by Rand, which is a philosophy of literature, and she discusses a concept I think she coined referred to as "psycho-epistemology." This book has always been my guide in terms of art.

DeanWCasa
Out

Keith Russell

Dean:

Are you an artist? (I am.)

Do you consider yourself an 'Objectivist' artist?

(I don't.)

Have you read What Art Is?

Keith.

Primal

So John basically you are saying "reality is absurd so accept absurd doctrines" kinda reminds me of the phrase "and it is to be believed because it is absurd."

Sorry but that sort of irrationality is not something I am going to swallow.

John Page

Primal:

What you call absurd and irrational might seem quite normal and completely logical to others. That is my point and I am ignoring the ad hominem in your response.

Perhaps we might proceed to the criteria which you apply and the process you follow to arrive at conclusions that things are absurd or irrational.

In turn this will, I suspect, lead to the subjective nature of your determinations/opinions. This being the case, I am hoping you will realize that it is the process of perception and the mind that makes things seem absurd - reality is as reality does and what you think it to be is neither here nor there.

Hope this makes sense!!

Cheers, John

Primal

Likewise JP creationism might seem like science to some, and evolution pseudoscience to the same. This doesn't change the reality of the situation. If someone's being irrational, they are irrational, whether they wish to admit it or not. The system may not be perfect but it's better then relativism which puts logical and illogical systems on equal ground.

John Page

Primal:

A couple of issues:

1. How do you know when someone is being irrational?
2. How do you arrive at the conclusion that relativism puts logical and illogical systems on equal ground? (This seems highly illogical to me )

Cheers, John

Primal

1) I know when someone is being irrational by applying the rules of evidence or logic, along with its ancestral axioms to their claims and seeing if the claims are at odds with such standards.

2) Constructivism says all axioms are equally true, or matter of pure prejudice and bias. This means that logic is just as much a matter of bias, equally true as fundamentalism. Relativism by its very nature puts logic and xianity at the same level. If you disagree with this you are not a pure relativist.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

'Reason' is 'non-contradictory identification'.

We say someone is 'irrational', then, when he or she is making claims which are contrary to reality, or which are self-contradictory.

Keith.