Is Reason Truly Reliable?

Thread starter mercmisfire
Start date Jun 21, 2004
Tags

Reason

In summary, the speaker argues that reason cannot prove that it is correct, and that in the absence of something greater than reason, we would be left with doubt. He believes that logic is based on three self-evident truths, and that if any of these axioms were to be proven incorrect, then logic would be rendered invalid. He argues that the new system which surpasses logic would leave no room for doubt, since it would prove that logic is incorrect without relying on logic.

Jun 23, 2005

kcballer21

Nicomachus said:

I mean sure you can deny axioms and be a nihilist but you would have no other option but to be comatose, lest you be a hypocrite.
*Nico

I agree, but if someone is a nihilist, what do they care if they're a hypocrite? It seems that label would only have meaning to someone that accepts the axioms in the first place.

Also, what happens when we distinguish rationality from reason? I mean, if we are talking about using reason, are we implying that we are being rational? Doesn't a nihilist use reason to determine that being rational isn't all it's cracked up to be? It seems that reason is inherent and that instead rationalism is what the topic should be about.