Are there people here who believe that reason is philosophically

Anti-rationalist here, there's pretty clearly a corelation between use of "reason" and "facts" and millions of innocents being slaughtered by freemasons, we should rely on God not man.

>>1486031
Reason fueled the reign of terror

>>1486047
Funny you mention correlation, because it isn't the same as causation. If you truly believe in the divine providence of God, you should go full Christian Science, flush all your medications down the toilet, stop using your seatbelt, and never go to to the doctor again. I'm sure it will turn out swell.

>>1486051
No, egomaniacs drunk with power and paranoia fueled the Reign of Terror.

File: 1461719266392.jpg (58KB, 500x407px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x407px

>>1486047

Personally, I think Philosophy and Religion are two separate things. I mean you can get morals from religion, but you get ethics from philosophy. I suppose you can combine the two, but you can be philosophical without being religious and you can can be religious without being philosophical.

>>1486047
>we should rely on God not man.
Just like ISIS then?

>>1486031
Uh, science, which is a consequence of reason, is pretty well demonstrated to be useful in the realm of human meaning. I don't think this needs much demonstrating.

>>1486107
That verse is cherrypicked
James 2 is about how the saved will exhibit certain behavior

File: 1465569301488.jpg (122KB, 500x679px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 500x679px

>>1486149

How do you exhibit behavior?

Maybe good works? Or through smugness about how strong your faith is?

>>1486138
Postmodern fucks like Lyotard would have you believe that science presents a narrative epistemologically as valid as any story told by people who live in mud huts and using stone tools about how the moon and stars were vomited up by a wolf that lives in the sky.

Paul Feyerabend argued that the practice of science is little more than anarchy cheekily passed off as rational, systematic investigation by people considering questions complex enough that nobody cared or was capable of knowing the difference.

>>1486138
The scientific method is incapable of answering why there should be scientific activity in the first place. Thus, it has to turn to narratives like any other mythology to justify its existence.

Namely, these are beliefs in reductive, Elightenment, secular Rationalism and the Hegelian concept of progressive Unity of all Knowledge.

When we land a man on the moon or clone a sheep, it is only satisfying and valued because we are valuing it in terms of its potential to liberate humanity (Enlightenment rationalism) or push us closer to the full realization of some pure, self-conscious human spirit (Hegelianism).

These are themselves speculative ideologies that are in no way proven by science, yet stand at the heart of its prestige and valuation. In this sense, science must continually justify its activities any time these ideologies are justifiably scrutinized.

>>1486169
>Maybe good works
Yes, that is how
I will not justify your erroneous shitpost image with a response

>>1486218

Why the fuck should the scientific method justify scientific activity?

The entire rationale behind the scientific method is that it is a rational guideline to conduct an investigation. The reason the investigation is being undertook is irrelevant.

And the reason we landed a man on the moon was so that we could show the USSR that we had the biggest dick on this planet and that they could sit the fuck down, not to "liberate humanity."

Is this what happens when you try to apply freshman philosophy to everything in life?

>>1486218
I just want everybody to have personal weapons of mass destruction and portable relativistic star drives.
Anarchy will only work when we can individually travel between stars and personally wield massive amounts of destructive force.

>>1486180
>Postmodern fucks like Lyotard would have you believe that science presents a narrative epistemologically as valid as any story told by people who live in mud huts and using stone tools about how the moon and stars were vomited up by a wolf that lives in the sky.

>6.371 The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.
>6.372Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages.
>And in fact both are right and both wrong: though the view of the ancients is clearer in so far as they have a clear and acknowledged terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything were explained.

Wittgenstein in the TLP, one of the seminal texts of the later so-called 'logical positivist' movement in philosophy.

>>1486180
You don't know what the fuck he is saying, calm yourself and get a formal education before speaking about what you do not understand.

>>1486284

>The reason the investigation is being undertook is irrelevant

What is being suggested is that underlying the ostensibly rational process of scientific inquiry is an irrational motivation that cannot be explained other than by begging the question, as you have done.

>>1486338

So you claim that trying to understand the unknown is irrational?

>>1486321
And, pray tell, what is he saying? Although it might escape you, that is sort of the reason I made this thread.

I have legitimately never been able to get a poststructuralist/deconstructionist/post-marxist type to give me a straight answer about why they honestly think what they think and what would be sufficient to get them to think otherwise.

If ad hom and appeals to super special spooky knowledge only the academically initiated can appreciate is all you can do, you wouldn't be the first.

>>1486319
The TLP is the ultimate exercise in attempting to demonstrate that language, under scrutiny, is capable of logical precision and clarity.

It's ironic, because although Wittgenstein considered the Tractatus a definitive treatment of philosophy for some time, he ultimately returned to the idea of language and admitted that the majority of our most significant utterances--gossiping, swearing, lying, etc.--are entirely logically un-rigorous, but yet still deeply valuable to human life.

If we were to apply a rigorous, rational, scientific standard to the question of what would constitute "good" language, it would utterly fail. How can reason attempt to explain the basis of human affairs if it cant even account for something as basic as how we use words?

>>1486352
As an aim unto itself, yes, it is no more special or deeply justified than the impulse to advance or take up any other ideology. As a consequence it, has to smuggle in additional narratives to lend itself legitimacy while obscuring this very fact to save face.

Unlike premodern people who are content to justify a narrative with another narrative, science promises to progressively replace narrative with incontrovertible fact. When it can do this for everything but it's own "creation myth", it becomes quite embarrassing and a matter to be obscured.

The legitimacy and prestige of science is largely a social construct and a dangerous and bad one at that.

>>1486352

I'm saying you cannot give a coherent account of the grounding of the scientific enterprise without assuming what is to be proven.

>>1486578

What a pretentious and infuriatingly shallow presentation of Wittgenstein.

>>1486031
Yes I think philosophy is a waste. Every time someone has tried to put philosophy into practice, rather than experience based theory, it's has been a disaster

>>1486532
There's categorically distinct ways of viewing the world, scientism rejects any and all mythologizing but doesn't realize it does set up it's own mythical foundation. You can call much of science mystical like tribal hut people yet still think it's better.

>>1486624
>t. Butthurt Wittgensteinian

Give a better one then. Wittgenstein tried his best to posit a model of human language in which its purest realization would permit philosophical clarity and illumination of the human condition. Philosophical quandaries are just ill-posed unrigorous language, right? Except that they aren't. Even Wittgenstein realized this towards the end of his life and clarified those thoughts in Philosophical Investigations.

Can you really blame people like Baudrillard, DeLeuze, and Derrida for proceeding to run roughshod over language? There wasn't anything special, precious, or privileged there, as Wittgenstein later ceded. It was just playing games and, if you are going to be playing games, why not at least play fun ones?

Science is just the narrative of chaining yourself to boring language games with a bunch of hangups.

>>1486699
>Wittgenstein tried his best to posit a model of human language in which its purest realization would permit philosophical clarity and illumination of the human condition.

Point to the section of the Tractatus where this is put forward as a project. Do you not understand the implication of these (>>1486319
) two passages?

>Can you really blame people like Baudrillard, DeLeuze, and Derrida for proceeding to run roughshod over language?

What are you referring to? Point to the texts.

>Science is just the narrative of chaining yourself to boring language games with a bunch of hangups.

You could say that about anything and it would be just as trivially incorrect.

>>1486667
We are talking about basic science here, right? As in experimentation probing the nature of reality and theorizing emerging from that? I agree, much of that work cannot immediately justify its activities.

Applied science is very different. I don't think anyone would seriously question the need for knowledge leading to better cancer treatments and clean energy. The fact that this type of knowledge affords such specific control over nature is also unique compared to other epistemologies. In this sense, pure science can justify its research through the promise of eventual applications ad the consequent betterment of human life.

When some shaman dances around and it rains every time he does this, I might be impressed only if his tribe lived in a desert that got the entirety of its annual rainfall from him doing this. On the other hand, an organic chemist can apply theoretical knowledge to produce a specific collection of atoms never before seen in the universe and they can do this with great intentionality and precision.

On that basis alone, the culture producing the latter knowledge has clearly arrived at a superior understanding of how the universe functions. Even if it is not perfect, it has still achieved a better metric of model fit, at least in this instance.

>>1486102
>No, egomaniacs drunk with power and paranoia fueled the Reign of Terror.
If that happened, then obviously that is part of reason, since according to you the world is reasonable.

>>1486218
>The scientific method is incapable of answering why there should be scientific activity in the first place.

this is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on /his/

File: 1469803540686.gif (987KB, 500x452px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 500x452px

>>1486031

I want postmodernists to fucking leave

>>1486218
>The scientific method is incapable of answering why there should be scientific activity in the first place.

that's like saying the method of making a sandwich doesn't justify why someone should be making a sandwich

>>1486667
>You can call much of science mystical

can you though?

>>1486788

No, it's like saying you can't explain why you are making a sandwich by making another sandwich.

>>1486031

Reason is a failed endeavor because it was never an endeavor to begin with.

Reason is a tool, a consequence, inevitable, like pissing or drinking or shitting.

Reason masures consistency , nothing more nothing else.

Reason as a goal and an idol is a fake rotten ideal, merely a shitty substitution of God.

>>1486796
>something from nothing