Thought as rationalism

[Holiday20310401]

You know... I`ve often found the necessity to rely on both the views of empiricism and rationalism, they rely on each other so why don`t they get along.

Also, you`d know more about this stuff than I would, I`m pure speculation here.

Anyways in the experience of truth rationalism seems like the process to come by it, not truth`s moment itself. I agree with the fact that rationalism does not exist in such processes as intuition, instinct, and emotion/stimulus. But those are minimal thought at best, so cognition is not in the margin of logic.

[boagie]

Holiday,

Rationalism is the doctrine that knowledge is acquired by reason without resort to experience. Perhaps after the fact of immediate experience as truth, rationalism might categorize this truth under past like experiences, but no, I do not believe it is possiable to come to truth through rationalization. Truth is biologically determined. It is the experience of your own biology that aquires the meaning of truth, and this truth is not itself a quality necessarily of the object in question, for truth is about, NOT the object, but the relation of the object to your own biology, very important distinction. So something can be determined to be hot, relative to your sensing biology, truth is the effect of that objects qualities upon you. So, it can fairly be said that all truth is relational, all meaning is relational, and the meaning of truth or meaning in general, is the property of a subject/consciousness. Truth is a relation, meaning, all meaning, is relational.

[Doobah47]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

could it be that the search for the "truth" is by definition "rationalism"?

I disagree; the truth is an irrational concept (you might have read my numerous posts regarding truth, if not I'll say no more than the 'truth' is ineffable due to the deceptive nature of symbolism vis a vis reality).

What is rational is the linear association of concepts, in orders that reflect the ordained/obvious/present in reality/cognition.

Rationalism is the doctrine that knowledge is acquired by reason without resort to experience.

Is this an established definition or your own interpretation?
I'd disagree somewhat by saying that rational behaviour is observable, hence reason, hence reason disassociated from experience (abstract, like maths); so rational thinking is learned through experience, thus as a process rationalism requires the notions that experience provides in order for it to develop. So "rationalism" does not negate the provision of "experience".

I interpret that what Boagie is getting at is a dichotomy (reason/experience), yet I find the two intrinsic to one another. Perhaps in pure theory, reason could be disassociated from experience, yet there is always the fact that reason involves experience as a meter of logic during the act of reasoning. So "x + y + z = q" requires that one has experienced - or could conceive - that "x + y = q" is illogical; and it also requires the experience of the individual characters' symbols as a conception founded in experience of the thing, hence a definition proceeds to link symbol/reason with experience. That reason/experience are only metaphysically connected should not incur disassociation, so a theory of dichotomy is flawed by the opposing concepts involving each other.

[boagie]

Doobah,

I would first say that truth requires no sybolism, truth is determined biologically and it is immediate though experience. One would require said symbolism if one was required to communicate ones experience, but that is quite another matter. So in communication, in relating ones experience yes rationalism is this linear formation of concepts.

The defination of rationalism and empricism are quite clearly defined, certainly the way they have been used here they are very distinct from one to the other. Rational behavior can only be present if the subject is already in poessesion of said knowledge of the truth, to what would the behaviour relate too, if it related to nothing, it could not be said to be, rational/relational.


"Reason could be disassociated from experience." Reason cannot be disassociated from experience, without experience there is nothing to reason, as without fuel there is no warmth provided by said fire. So no the rationalism does not negate the provison of experience, I do not think that was inferred anywhere. I think I can see where you might think my intention was a dichotomy. There is however a branch of philosophy that is defined by this belief in pure reason, so there are at least some philosophers whom believe in this dichotomy. What do you say to the statement that all truth is biologically determined , that the meaning of said truth is the experience of the realtion between the object and ones own biology, the experienced judgement of which, is truth.

[Holiday20310401]

Sorry boagie I've actually been agreeing with you the whole time, just that I forgot that rationalism implies something different from rationalizing. Wrong choice of words, lol.

But I still stand by how rationalizing thought must occur for biological truth to happen. Unless there is evidence of otherwise.

[boagie]

Holiday,

On what basis do you insist that rationalization must occur for one to know truth, if you spilled boiling water on yourself, would you need to rationalize that it is hot, is not the realization immediate, rationalization might come in when you are trying to relate the experience to another but the experience is immediate, the truth is the effect it has upon you, no rationalization, no symbols, just experience.

[Holiday20310401]

Well yes the truth is already there because the rationalizing occurred and was imprinted hundreds of years ago when humans or whatever species, first developed that adaptation, or quality. And then I suppose that rationalizing ... oh wait ... oh ok you're right. Lol. Other primitives can't really rationalize can they.?

[de Silentio]

Boagie,

How are you using the term 'immediate'? I ask because I would say that any experience you have is mediated by your mind, that what makes it an experience. If it were not mediated by your mind you would never come to know it, your mind must arrange and you must have some sense of understanding that your mind imparts to your conscience self in order for it to be an experience.

If you are using the term immediate in the sense of time, you are correct, but experience is still mediated.

Biological process on the other hand need not be mediated by your mind, because they are simple cause and effect relationships between nerves and such.

Moving from the boiling hot water touching your skin to stimulating your nerves is not mediated by your mind. Your mind then translates those sensations and conveys the information to your conscious self. The translation is mediation.

Holliday,

Be careful how you use the term rationalizing, that has psychological undertones. Unless you mean the word rational in the sense that experience requires the use of the mind. If it is the latter, then my statement to boagie agrees with a portion of your point.

Biological truth on the other hand has nothing to do with our minds, unless you are some kind of whack postmodernist. The cause and effect relationships that the biochemical processes operate by will continue to operate if you and I are experiencing them or not. (At least, intuitively they seem like they will)

Perhaps we can say: Thought as a rational process?

p.s. Sorry if I'm annoyingly straight forward, not much time to type as I am at work. The posts just seemed to spark some thought.

[boagie]

de Silentio,

Yes your input makes it seem a little less straight forward, if experience is not immediate which I think you are probably right, even if it is a matter of a nanosecond delay. The question was though, is truth obtainable by means of rationalization, well no, it is not. If one does not have the experience/s to rationalize about, of course you have nothing happening. Your above statement, "Thought is a rational process." Well yes, I can see that, but is not rational dependent upon that which is relational in our experience, rational infers the arrangement of objects, concepts or stimulus in relation to one another, this requires experience of all those things, before they can be rationalized. I can appreciate that there is potential in the container of consciousness the brain or mind, and that the container will impose its order upon the content which is its experience, it is simply absurd to think that one could order and create out of the intake of nothing, so, no rationalization can only come to truth via means of experience. Actually del silentio, you got the wheels turning thanks for the input.

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by boagie

if experience is not immediate which I think you are probably right, even if it is a matter of a nanosecond delay.

The term 'immediate' has two meanings, this is what I was trying to clear up. I initially thought you were talking about the meaning that I explained in the my previous post, but now I think I was incorrect.

One meaning of immediate is in regards to time. Immediate being 'the now', not before or after, but now.

The other meaning is in regards to an intervening medium. This is what I outlined in my post. Immediate is opposed to mediate. If something is immediately experienced, then the mind plays no role in 'shaping' that experience. If the mind mediates the experience, then it takes information in and shapes it accordingly before it is provided to the concious mind. To know something, the mind must first play it's 'tricks'.

The question was though, is truth obtainable by means of rationalization, well no, it is not.

You ask if truth is obtainable by means of rationalization. I think rationalization is not the correct term to use. Rationalization refers the to psychological act of justifying thoughts or behaviors.

Rational on the other hand deals with the minds role in experience. Without our rational processes (our minds active role), we cannot know truth.

One cannot find truth by using either experience or our rational capabilities alone. Both are required.

If one does not have the experience/s to rationalize about, of course you have nothing happening.

Our mind is shaped in a certain way by experience, our rational processes must reflect our experiences. If they did not, the experience of our conscious self would not correspond to the external world.

Take psychedelic drugs as an example. They disfigure the rules by which our mind interprets our sensations. This disfiguring creates objects of the outside world to move, disappear, or radically change shape.

Your above statement, "Thought is a rational process." Well yes, I can see that, but is not rational dependent upon that which is relational in our experience, rational infers the arrangement of objects, concepts or stimulus in relation to one another, this requires experience of all those things, before they can be rationalized.

Yes, but without a rational process, you cannot have experience. You cannot 'know' the outside world if your mind does not allow you to. The mind has to do some shaping of my sensations before I can experience them.

I used the phrase "Thought as a Rational Process" because in order for us to experience, we have to have an active mind that can present our experiences to the conscious self.

I can appreciate that there is potential in the container of consciousness the brain or mind, and that the container will impose its order upon the content which is its experience, it is simply absurd to think that one could order and create out of the intake of nothing, so, no rationalization can only come to truth via means of experience.

I did not mean to imply this, I was looking for a clarification on the terms you and holiday were using. Then I decided to guess what you both meant, and commented on it.

I still am unclear on what holiday means by 'biological truths'.

Actually de silentio, you got the wheels turning thanks for the input.

Wheels turning is what philosophy is all about!