On what epistemological basis does one conclude that “reason" is primary....

[Mike82ARP]

without engaging in circular reasoning? Or any other epistemological tenet, for that matter.

It seems that once one backs up as far as one can go on the trail to epistemological origins, ultimate authorities must become self attesting.

[tmj]

I think according to O'ism , Rand's justification or proof was introspection, based on the axiom of consciousness. Just don't forget the grains of salt when considering my explanations, they come only from my extremely nonacademic understanding

[George H. Smith]

without engaging in circular reasoning? Or any other epistemological tenet, for that matter.

It seems that once one backs up as far as one can go on the trail to epistemological origins, ultimate authorities must become self attesting.

I'm not sure what you mean by "self-attesting," since reason is not an "authority." Yes, reason can justify its own foundations, but if some method other than reason is proposed, then how could it be evaluated without the use of reason itself? What possible competitors could there be?

Ghs

[Mike82ARP]

without engaging in circular reasoning? Or any other epistemological tenet, for that matter.

It seems that once one backs up as far as one can go on the trail to epistemological origins, ultimate authorities must become self attesting.

I'm not sure what you mean by "self-attesting," since reason is not an "authority." Yes, reason can justify its own foundations, but if some method other than reason is proposed, then how could it be evaluated without the use of reason itself? What possible competitors could there be?

Ghs

By “authority” I meant the primary basis for your belief.

You wrote, "how could [reason] be evaluated without the use of reason itself?” That was my question. Using reason to evaluate reason is technically circular reasoning, but it seems that at point that becomes necessary.

[George H. Smith]

without engaging in circular reasoning? Or any other epistemological tenet, for that matter.

It seems that once one backs up as far as one can go on the trail to epistemological origins, ultimate authorities must become self attesting.

I'm not sure what you mean by "self-attesting," since reason is not an "authority." Yes, reason can justify its own foundations, but if some method other than reason is proposed, then how could it be evaluated without the use of reason itself? What possible competitors could there be?

Ghs

By “authority” I meant the primary basis for your belief.

You wrote, "how could [reason] be evaluated without the use of reason itself?” That was my question. Using reason to evaluate reason is technically circular reasoning, but it seems that at point that becomes necessary.

How does one "evaluate" anything, including your argument, without the use of reason? Or, more broadly, how can one "justify" anything without the use of reason? Even use of the term "circular reasoning" -- which suggests a type of fallacy -- makes no sense without presupposing reason as a guide, since a "fallacy" refers to an invalid form of reasoning -- which in turn presupposes that we can distinguish between valid and invalid arguments.

All notions of justification, etc., presuppose the efficacy of reason and would make no sense without this presupposition. To ask that reason itself be justified therefore commits what Randians call the "fallacy of the stolen concept." (Other philosophers have recognized this fallacy without using this label.) It's not as if we have possible competitors here. We accept reason because we have no other choice if we wish to acquire knowledge and speak intelligibly. This has nothing to do with "circular reasoning."

Ghs

[Mike82ARP]

without engaging in circular reasoning? Or any other epistemological tenet, for that matter.

It seems that once one backs up as far as one can go on the trail to epistemological origins, ultimate authorities must become self attesting.

I'm not sure what you mean by "self-attesting," since reason is not an "authority." Yes, reason can justify its own foundations, but if some method other than reason is proposed, then how could it be evaluated without the use of reason itself? What possible competitors could there be?

Ghs

By “authority” I meant the primary basis for your belief.

You wrote, "how could [reason] be evaluated without the use of reason itself?” That was my question. Using reason to evaluate reason is technically circular reasoning, but it seems that at point that becomes necessary.

How does one "evaluate" anything, including your argument, without the use of reason? Or, more broadly, how can one "justify" anything without the use of reason? Even use of the term "circular reasoning" -- which suggests a type of fallacy -- makes no sense without presupposing reason as a guide, since a "fallacy" refers to an invalid form of reasoning -- which in turn presupposes that we can distinguish between valid and invalid arguments.

All notions of justification, etc., presuppose the efficacy of reason and would make no sense without this presupposition. To ask that reason itself be justified therefore commits what Randians call the "fallacy of the stolen concept." (Other philosophers have recognized this fallacy without using this label.) It's not as if we have possible competitors here. We accept reason because we have no other choice if we wish to acquire knowledge and speak intelligibly. This has nothing to do with "circular reasoning."

Ghs

Good explanation. It makes perfect sense. Thanks! I’m here to learn.

[tmj]

hey thats what i said, just less academically

[Mike82ARP]

hey thats what i said, just less academically

LOL!!!!

[eva matthews]

To the extent that all epistemologies employ the human faculty of reason, or 'thought', it would indeed seem that 'primacy' is putting ontological lipstick on an epistemological pig. NB: 'Primacy' means 'state of being primary'

First, since 'primacy' easily translates from the fancy word 'ontology' (ontos='prime, strange to tell!), to unwind 'primacy of reason' would snatch 'reason' out of the human faculty department and place it as an essence. of being. ,

So now we have , "The being-essence of humanity, being the ability to reason, is the most important aspect of epistemology."

Next, by consequence, you're really saying, "Our true essence is our ability to do epistemology."

Or, of course, ontology=epistemology!(?)

In all seriousness, epistenmology means 'justifying what we believe'. Among reasonable people, this indeed means using thought.

But since there are many thought-bearing epistemologies that disagree.with each other, the claim that the one espoused by your opponent is 'unreasonable' is merely a well-poisioning rhetorical device. It has nothing to do with philosophy.

Eva

[Mikee]

Refusing to check premises has nothing to do with philosophy. If someone refuses to check their premises, or even explore them, you have the right to call them unreasonable, even if only to vent frustration. Not expecting the public school rote learner to understand this...

Academic memes are not facts. The contents of 100M books are not facts. There are unknowns, and unknown unknowns. There is no such thing as a collective mind or collective wisdom or collective truth. Every single thing you think you know could be wrong. No epistemology can protect you. You can only act on what you think you know, the decision is act or not act. Do or not do. Every individual makes this decision for themselves. Command societies, those that presume to make decisions for others to follow, simply turn off individuals ability to act. The on-off switch is turned off permanently. This presumption, "I know more than you so I can make you do what I want" is the most destructive force in human action.

[eva matthews]

Actually, I see philosophy as being about the challenging of premises. In other words, we all go about making decisions based upon assumptions that haven't been examined.

One of the tropes that explains how we examine our assumptions (premises) is, "Am I using reason, emotion, blind faith, or simply repeating to conform? And if reason is used, per Kahneman, am I taking time to analyze, or merely using a heuristic?

Otherwise, no, what we encounter a zillion times a day are 'facts' that we have neither the time nor the wherewithall to properly examine. For its part, academia tries to offer proof and reason as part of factual revealing, and tries to get students into the habit of doing the same...obviously with spotty results as the problem is to big to really resolve.

But calling all of these 'non-facts' because i haven't properly examined them is a solipsism. In other words, verbally admitting that we live mostly in a world of premises, assumptions and unexamined facts is to do nothing but bring thought into line with lived reality.

So the examination of premises/assumptions is a matter of choosing one's battles. This involves the examination of said assumptions and premisies thought to be meaningful, or important enough. The Scholastic word for meaning-as-importance was 'concept'. philosophy, therefore, can be understood as a study of conepts.

Eva

[Peter]

I’m just getting started with his book but Harry Binswanger writes in “How We Know,” page 37:

The mind, the reasoning intellect, is a vital organ. A biologist could not understand the heart if he did not know its biological function, and a philosopher cannot understand reason, or any other faculty of consciousness, if he ignores the biological function of that faculty.

end quote

Because one needs reason to explain *reason* does not make it circular to me. When I wake up I never wonder am I conscious? I don’t need to ask. When I look and see the clock I don’t need to ask, how do I know that is a clock? That was settled long ago. *Reason* works. Being unreasonable gets you killed. So, “Existence and "consciousness" are irreducible primaries” and axiomatic. Reason is how we use our minds at the proper level.

Here is another cool quote I just used on another thread. In the preface Harry writes:

Mankind has existed for 400,000 years but 395,000 of those years were consumed by the Stone Age. The factor that freed men from endless toil and early death, the root cause of the elevated level of existence we now take for granted, is one precious value: *knowledge.* The painfully acquired knowledge of how to master nature, how to organize social existence, and how to understand himself is what enabled man to rise from the cave to the skyscraper, from warring clans to a global economy, from an average lifespan of less than 30 years to one approaching 80.

end quote

[eva matthews]

Yes, but please keep in mind that it was a mutative qwirk in mutations that gave h.sapiens a much larger brain than the other great apes. Reason is what we do with said brain.

Existence and consciousness are not irreductables for branches pf philosophy that study there in's and out's. To study what's most important in existence (and parts that are not) is called 'Ontology'. Lots of existence questions connect to the free- will debate.

To study consciousness and how it might be defined in ways not biomedical is called ...'consciousness'. For example, can it be explained by a computer model? Can it really be explained by neuronal processes, or do we need a second property altogether, or "property dualism"?

I'm really not sure how adding 'axiom' into the stew enhances understanding. From the Greek meaning 'worthy', the word worked its waty into Euclidian geometry behind the master's back,

Today, it's a fun metaphor to get high-schoolers to nail down abstract geometric forms. Likewise, it describes tactics of warfare of some Chinese guy that supposed to be good for businessmen to memorize. Then, of course, there's football: challenge the speed of the MLB when they go into Cover 2! Eventually, you will get enough concussions to cause permanent brain damage!

Worthy statements, all.

Eva

[BaalChatzaf]

Reason is one of the things we do with our brains, but not the only thing and probably not the main thing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Eva,

I have a question and there is no real subtle way of asking it.

So I'm just going to ask it.

Are you dyslexic to some degree?

If you are, I will stop teasing you about your constant misspelling.

If you are not, well... bwuahahahahahahaha!!!

I'm going to have some fun.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

Philosophy is the most important science of all. Everyone has one whether they are conscious of it or not.

It is no coincidence that philosophy's importance has been downplayed and relegated to its unimportant status by academia.

People are much easier to manipulate when most of their lives are run on "autopilot".

[BaalChatzaf]

Philosophy is the most important science of all. Everyone has one whether they are conscious of it or not.

It is no coincidence that philosophy's importance has been downplayed and relegated to its unimportant status by academia.

People are much easier to manipulate when most of their lives are run on "autopilot".

Metaphysics is not a science. It makes few if any empirically testable assertions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jules Troy]

But yet science has its roots in philosophy.

[Mikee]

Actually, I see philosophy as being about the challenging of premises. In other words, we all go about making decisions based upon assumptions that haven't been examined.

One of the tropes that explains how we examine our assumptions (premises) is, "Am I using reason, emotion, blind faith, or simply repeating to conform? And if reason is used, per Kahneman, am I taking time to analyze, or merely using a heuristic?

Otherwise, no, what we encounter a zillion times a day are 'facts' that we have neither the time nor the wherewithall to properly examine. For its part, academia tries to offer proof and reason as part of factual revealing, and tries to get students into the habit of doing the same...obviously with spotty results as the problem is to big to really resolve.

But calling all of these 'non-facts' because i haven't properly examined them is a solipsism. In other words, verbally admitting that we live mostly in a world of premises, assumptions and unexamined facts is to do nothing but bring thought into line with lived reality.

So the examination of premises/assumptions is a matter of choosing one's battles. This involves the examination of said assumptions and premisies thought to be meaningful, or important enough. The Scholastic word for meaning-as-importance was 'concept'. philosophy, therefore, can be understood as a study of conepts.

Eva

Challenging whose premises? Your own? And who is this "we" you're talking about? Again, you use "we" (meaning yourself) regarding not having the time to examine the facts you use in everyday life. So, what is all this discussion about? You lecture, you blind us with your brilliance on discussion after discussion but don't really address the points other people are trying to make. What of my point about the on-off switch? And those who would force others into conformity simply turn the switch to "off" for a great part of humanity? About solipsism; no, I am nearly the polar opposite. You are like the chess prodigy, playing 20 people at once, jumping from game to game hardly looking. Except it's a lot easier to tell who's winning a chess game. You depend on "not checking the facts" [no time, remember?] to maintain the illusion of winning all the games. Makes you seem kind of young, don't you think? Not an insult, I admire your energy and your youth, having lost mine.

[anthony]

Otherwise, no, what we encounter a zillion times a day are 'facts' that we have neither the time nor the wherewithall to properly examine.

Eva

Stated clearly - and there's the case for the faculty of concept formation. Hierarchically slotting in those facts into pre-existing concepts, overseen and adjudged by principles.

[Peter]

Michael asked Eva:

Are you dyslexic to some degree?

Prior to that question Eva wrote:

To study consciousness and how it might be defined in ways not biomedical is called ...'consciousness'. For example, can it be explained by a computer model? Can it really be explained by neuronal processes, or do we need a second property altogether, or "property dualism"? . . . I'm really not sure how adding 'axiom' into the stew enhances understanding.

end quote

It is self evident, so saying *consciousness* is ‘axiomatic’ means we can study it but we need our consciousness to study our consciousness. And that is predicated on the fact that when “Little Eva” first had thoughts she was aware of her thoughts and had NO DOUBT they were “her” thoughts, nor did she WILLINGLY accept anyone else’s opinion over hers. Within a short time Eva made sense of the sensory data. She accepted her own senses and reasoning as axiomatic. Dyslexia or autism might affect that natural certainty.

“How We Know,” by Harry Binswanger, Pg 61 to 62:

The three dimensional spatial array given in perception is what fundamentally distinguishes perception from sensation. It is not merely that perception (especially vision) gives entities, but also that perception provides the co-presence of all the entities that the animal can act on or be affected by. We see in one spread the entire scene of entities.

end quote

Studying the bio-mechanical with consciousness is science but one cannot at the same time, doubt the axiomatic method known since the beginning of sentience: conscious reasoning. The proof is in the pudding.

I wrote the following on the Binswanger thread but it is pertinent here also.

“How We Know,” by Harry Binswanger, Pg 27 to 28:

Consciousness, unlike existence, is a property: Consciousness is an attribute of certain living entities, but it is not an attribute of a given state of awareness, it “is” that state. (ITOE, 56) Just as existence is not something distinguishable from, added to, or underlying the various things that exist, so consciousness is not something distinguishable from, added to, or underlying the various states of awareness . . . . Existence and consciousness are irreducible primaries.

end quote

I have always been intrigued by the above self evidentiary thought. Existence and consciousness are irreducible primaries, yet consciousness is a *property* of existence. Merriam Webster defines property as: “a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing.” So, there could be *existence* without *consciousness* but not *consciousness* without *existence.* There are places in the universe without consciousness. As you read this there are places near your personal consciousness without another consciousness. Are the two primaries equal in any way? In one sense. *Volitional consciousness* follows existence’s rules of causality but can *pick* more than one particular outcome.

Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 3 writes:

“Volitional” means selected from two or more alternatives that were possible under the circumstances, the difference being made by the individual’s decision, which could have been otherwise.

end quote

Positive of the self evident, consciousness exists within existence, then the logical flow is: individual consciousness (which is axiomatic) recognizes some if not all possible alternatives, then selects a particular alternative.

The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished - George Bernard Shaw.

Existence is billiard ball causality, (with some randomness *possible*), but with the addition of higher human consciousness, existence and causality has been changed as never before. So, in that sense volitional consciousness is . . . fill in the blank. With your thoughts 8-)

Peter

[Peter]

The great one, George H. Smith wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "self-attesting," since reason is not an "authority." Yes, reason can justify its own foundations, but if some method other than reason is proposed, then how could it be evaluated without the use of reason itself? What possible competitors could there be?

end quote

Rage? The following rant is not to anyone in particular. Skeptics, we are not in The Matrix. The mind that thought of the Matrix and other Scifi versions of it were imagining something other than human consciousness. True mind control would destroy the mind, whether from being hooked up to electrodes or from being dosed with drugs; from brainwashing or from societal conditioning; from parental abuse to Pavlov to Skinner to propaganda to subliminal suggestion, to a discredited Freud and to mental illness, to the lion who won’t sleep tonight – deliver us from evil.

At this point, if we ignore our prime means of survival, we are doomed to fail. If we discredit consciousness by insisting that it must first be mapped to be understood, we are missing the big picture. Humanity’s volitional consciousness evolved. We the living, were born this way. Look inside, think, and stay alive to reproduce. The software or bio-ware need not EVER be completely understood just as the Universe need not EVER be completely understood.

Ahhhh. Whoo! I just looked at a Townhall email. From an NYT / CBS poll: Only six percent of Americans think Obamacare is working, so our minds must be working.

[tmj]

Only six percent think Ocare is transferring control of the medical services industry over to govt overseers?! Gosh I hope they are articulate enough to convince the other 94!

[eva matthews]

Actually, I see philosophy as being about the challenging of premises. In other words, we all go about making decisions based upon assumptions that haven't been examined.

One of the tropes that explains how we examine our assumptions (premises) is, "Am I using reason, emotion, blind faith, or simply repeating to conform? And if reason is used, per Kahneman, am I taking time to analyze, or merely using a heuristic?

Otherwise, no, what we encounter a zillion times a day are 'facts' that we have neither the time nor the wherewithall to properly examine. For its part, academia tries to offer proof and reason as part of factual revealing, and tries to get students into the habit of doing the same...obviously with spotty results as the problem is to big to really resolve.

But calling all of these 'non-facts' because i haven't properly examined them is a solipsism. In other words, verbally admitting that we live mostly in a world of premises, assumptions and unexamined facts is to do nothing but bring thought into line with lived reality.

So the examination of premises/assumptions is a matter of choosing one's battles. This involves the examination of said assumptions and premisies thought to be meaningful, or important enough. The Scholastic word for meaning-as-importance was 'concept'. philosophy, therefore, can be understood as a study of conepts.

Eva

Challenging whose premises? Your own? And who is this "we" you're talking about? Again, you use "we" (meaning yourself) regarding not having the time to examine the facts you use in everyday life. So, what is all this discussion about? You lecture, you blind us with your brilliance on discussion after discussion but don't really address the points other people are trying to make. What of my point about the on-off switch? And those who would force others into conformity simply turn the switch to "off" for a great part of humanity? About solipsism; no, I am nearly the polar opposite. You are like the chess prodigy, playing 20 people at once, jumping from game to game hardly looking. Except it's a lot easier to tell who's winning a chess game. You depend on "not checking the facts" [no time, remember?] to maintain the illusion of winning all the games. Makes you seem kind of young, don't you think? Not an insult, I admire your energy and your youth, having lost mine.

Mikee,

If I appear to be indirect, rest assured it's out of politeness. Re your post #10, kindly re-read my response in post # 13 and you'll discover that my disagreement is clear. Otherwise, no, i'm not flattered that I blind you with my brilliance, and yes, if you say that all the facts in all the 1000+ books as cited are not really 'facts' until you've examined them, you're indeed a solopsist by garden-varietty definition.

Eva

[Jules Troy]

Some one appears to have aspirations of being a Sophist.(it isn't Mikee!)