Introduction

Method

There is making a rational decision. There is making a decision that is contrary to rationality. And there is making a decision when rationality supports agnosticism.

Explicit factors of reason Ė all significance input into reason that the being is aware of. Implicit factors of reason Ė all significant input that the being is not consciously aware of.

For any given assertion there are only three rational approaches to rejecting it: 1) to show how it results in a contradiction or annihilation of thought 2) to show that another assertion is more reasonable 3) to show that the assertion has no rational support. #3 Can only be used in good faith as a claim that no arguments are apparent, similar to coming to the conclusion that there are no elephants in the room with me because none are apparent. This requires responsibility to continue to look for arguments.

Objective gets its validity from the subjective.

Some appeal to authority, some appeal to past

Some instances of appeal to past donít presuppose the community, as with personal experiences. Appeal to analogy is totally subjective from this one can derive the rationality of other minds and form this the other reasoning.

What I am saying is that objections and arguments are thoughts and so thoughts are the common currency and must be accepted by all parties. If someone claims that his currency is counterfeit and valueless and then tries to give it to me, I will reject it. Same goes for those doubting my epistemology.

Notice how I keep the criteria as simple as possible.

What my method focuses on is the impossibility of thinking otherwise.

Perhaps a test of whether or not the problem lies with my inability or their confusion is a practical test, since certain thoughts have definite outcomes, but then this could equally well he objected to.

To have faith is to either: 1) believe in the existence of something without evidence or proof 2) to have expectations about something

Differentiate between when there is no reason on either side of an issue, and when both sides have equal reason to accept.

Metaphysics canít use reason because reason uses experience. So metaphysics can only use logic.

Acquaintance with objects seems more persuasive because we know that something exists.

Distinguish between 1st and 2nd order reasoning.

My philosophy does start out with knowledge of philosophy and its history.

The Naturalist does not seek truth first and foremost but rather mechanistic understanding; with the faith that Natureís laws will be revealed (which parallels religious belief).

What determines everything from the start are oneís personal values. I cannot hope to persuade some to care about my philosophy who donít care about truth. Furthermore, my philosophy will already be dismissed if the listener does not initially respect me, which means if the philosopher intends to communicate his message he must create respect for himself in others, and this depends on the values of others.

First determine peopleís purposes and intentions for engaging in an argument. Ex. The atheist should not be defending atheism but should be wanting to learn by seeking an argument that gives them the concept of something that they didnít know existed before.

If one loves diamonds (truth) do they grab the first jewel they see and never let it go? Or do they wait for a real diamond? Mez assumes that our knowledge is stagnant. Letís assume it is permenantly stagnate and we know this. Then if we seek the truth do we accept anything at all? I think not because what we want is the truth and we could never know that we have what we want or not. We donít want to simply believe we have it, we want it to be true that we have it. And since this is our desire to possess the truth our desire could never be quenched unless we know we have it. Otherwise if our desire was satisfied by believing something that wasnít true and we accepted this, it is obvious that we donít really want the truth.

I am not always rational but what I really want are for people to call things like they are, and that is why I put so much emphasis on the labels of rational and irrational.

Dreams might be the reason or cause for why I doubt but that doesnít mean it is the justification for doubt. Alternate possibilities is the only thing needed for doubt.

There are problems with peopleís ability to see logical implications, if A then B and if B then C etc., someone might be able to grasp that if A then C but might not be able to grasp that if A then Z.

Reality is something that cannot be thought of not to exist. Occamís razor, common sense, and reason are all practical tools not metaphysical ones. What we refer to most of the time we are confused. It is like we use a tree as a goal post for a football game and then forget that the tree qua goal post is a context oriented fact.

When reasoning gives value to the information given from others it presupposes the existence of other minds and communication

There are lovers of: truth, pleasure, progress, goodness

Why do I assume things are possible until shown to be impossible instead of viewing things as impossible until shown to be possible?

I already have a past and a bunch of preconceived notions when I start thinking.

What is the difference between assuming any supporting premise and assuming knowledge of the whole world?

There is making a rational decision there is making a decision that is contrary to rationality and there is making a decision when rationality supports agnosticism.

It should always be acceptable to challenge one's premises unless those premises are necessary.

Be careful to not presuppose purpose

Two requirements for rational belief: is it arbitrary? Is it justified? What constitutes sufficient reason? Does the allowance of meaning count as enough to make a belief stand out as unique so that accepting it isnít arbitrary?

I can't prove that red is not the same as blue, the phenomena themselves prove it.


Main Page

© 2006