Please respond to at least one of the following questions.
1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
2. If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended, or can be shown to be irrational, should they be renounced?
3. What may be meant by Nietzsche's comment that 'Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme which we cannot escape'?
4. Does the nature of reason vary across cultures? If so, explain how and why.
1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
2. If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended, or can be shown to be irrational, should they be renounced?
3. What may be meant by Nietzsche's comment that 'Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme which we cannot escape'?
4. Does the nature of reason vary across cultures? If so, explain how and why.
4. Does the nature of reason vary across cultures? If so, explain how and why.
ReplyDeleteBeing objective means you are not dictated by your own motivations or feelings, you consider fact over personal feelings. This could be argued as a universal concept, that we can all apply reason. However, cultures have their own customs and social constructs that can cause difference in a person's reason. Most of human reasoning is dependent on upbringing in your moral beliefs and values. For example, Western and Eastern cultures way of greeting is exactly the opposite. Typically in Western societies, greeting someone means physical contact, take shaking hands or hugging as an example. However, in Eastern societies greeting usually doesn't involve contact at all and is even frowned upon. The difference is dictated by a society's acceptance of how to greet other in their cultures. Culture may not entirely influence our reasoning but it definitely varies cross culturally.
1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteNo, knowledge does not always require rational basis. However, in most cases, it does. We use our past experiences and logic in order to form rational decisions and answers to knowledge claims. In most situations, we rationalize our behavior. In school, we explain how we know our answer is correct. In some cases, however, our knowledge does not have a rational basis. Some people say that they have a “gut feeling” or intuition that something is wrong. There is no physical evidence around them that supports this, yet, they still know that something is wrong. These sorts of situations have no rational basis, but they still remain true. Similarly, in primal or dangerous situations, people cannot explain why they act in certain ways. Our instincts and the chemicals in our brain cause us to act in a way we cannot explain. For example, our instincts and brain emit our “flight or fight” response. We cannot explain why we know we must run or fight, yet our body does. This knowledge has no rational basis. Similarly, most people have at least one food item that their body will physically will not allow them to swallow. We know that we do not like these foods even though we cannot explain why. It does not make sense for someone to not like a particular food without a preconceived illness or bad experience. We have no rational basis. For these reasons, I believe that although most of our knowledge is rooted in a rational basis, there are certain situations in which the way we act or know seems entirely irrational.
If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended, or can be shown to be irrational, should they be renounced?
ReplyDeleteIf by renounced, you mean removed from history, then no. Many things people say are wrong. The way someone learns is by looking at these things and explaining to themselves why it is wrong. If we were to remove every incorrect knowledge claim, what would we have to compare right things to wrong things? Yes there are some outlandish ideas out there, but the only way a human can know that it is outlandish is to not be told that it is, but to see for themselves that its stupid and no right. I do not think irrational knowledge claims should be renounced, but amplified for whats wrong about them.
3. We are bound by the perception of reason given to us by what we can see with our (limited) senses as well as the societal expectations about what is and isn't true. The best we can ever do is interpret the information given. While math and such may give very accurate answers, human have made them as a system by which to understand the world around us. We find new things out every year, changing the way we look at this science. Therefore, reason and logic are just interpretations based on the limited information we currently have available. What is common sense today, may be stupid lies in just a century.
ReplyDelete2) If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended, or can be shown to be irrational, should they be renounced?
ReplyDeleteJust because a claim isn't defended well doesn't mean it should be ignored or renounced. A claim can be either an opinion or a fact that deems truthful to the person defending it. No one should be refuted for their opinion, even if it is a fact that others think is factually incorrect. False facts are mistakes that can be learned from easily. As humans, we have been taught to make mistakes, then act on them by performing the same action, but in a way that outputs success on our part. Without the nature of incorrect and renounced knowledge claims, what is there to learn from? I personally would not like someone telling me that I am wrong. I would rather learn from my own mistake and teach myself how I could change my actions in the future if that situation occurred a second time. Incorrect knowledge claims, or just irrationally defended claims, should not be renounced simply because the general public learns from one another as well as themselves.
What about the rational claim that the Earth is Flat? It sure looks flat to me..., yet this can also be rationally proven to be untrue, yet there are people who still believe it is a giant conspiracy.
Delete1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteNo, Knowledge does not require rational basis. Many times we know thing and have no reasonable way of explaining how it is that we know this. Whether or not the knowledge is accurate or reliable can require for some rational basis, but just because a piece of knowledge does not seem rational at the time does not mean its incorrect. Intuition for example can be a form of knowledge that many times does not seem reasonable. I see it kind of like how when you bring a friend home and your mother doesn't like them and she doesn't have any sort of reason behind this just her intuition. Most of the times this happens your mom is usually right and you eventually stop being friends with this person. Your mom wasn't wrong even though she had no rational basis to her knowledge.
1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteNo, knowledge does not always have to be rationally based. Some knowledge is based on beliefs rather than logic. Most of the time this is frowned upon as not being “scientific” but knowledge does not have to be able to be proven in order to be worthwhile. The school systems are based upon the ability to explain why things are true and rational, but often times life is based on subtle instinctive reactions. Like when you meet someone and you get a bad feeling about them and you chose to trust it. That feeling tells you not to trust the person, and that is a sort of knowledge within itself. You cannot ever really explain what gave you that feeling in the first few moments that you meet the person, but you trust it. In addition to this, the idea of God or a higher being is not necessarily rational, but it is a sort of knowledge. While people cannot prove the existence of God, they see it in certain things in their lives that they cannot explain as anything other than miraculous. For those people, although God does not have a rational basis, he/she still provides them with knowledge. Furthermore, emotions are almost completely irrational, but they are also a form of knowledge. Sometimes you cannot explain exactly why you love or hate someone, just that you do.
Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteNo, knowledge doesn't have to be require rational basis. Knowledge does not have to based on rational, but it can be based on belief. Most of time we can't prove how we know something, we just believe that we are right. A knowledge is knowledge whether it's rational or irrational, the fact that we know something is considered knowledge. For instance, religion is a common belief that people have, it doesn't require rational basis but it's personal beliefs. Even a reasonable argument will never sway a person's knowledge on the specific religion they believe. Therefore, any rational thought will never override the belief that someone has.
#4 Reason does not vary much if at all just some cultures use reason for different things, one culture might use reason more for their food suppies or house building techniques.But as a human spices we are all linked to close together to think of reason in different ways. Some culture might put different things high on thier priority list but the way they reason problems out an make decisions is the same basiced on their values as a culture. Think of it like a multiplication you can have AxB or BxD and you will get two different answers but you are still doing the same basic multiplication.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete3. What may be meant by Nietzsche's comment that 'Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme which we cannot escape'?
ReplyDeleteAlthough people may live in extremely different geological locations, we all have a societal expectation and norm that we are aware and may abide to. This scheme tells us at a young age what is acceptable or not, making us become reluctant to embrace oddities in fear of not fitting in. It is this societal norm that we grow up with that hinders our thoughts and acceptance to the unusual. Rational thought is subjective, based on what us as individuals personally believe is logical. In ancient times, it was once thought that the Earth was flat. This was a theory that not many argued with and accepted as logical; it was rational. But as time passed, the theory was disproven. This example demonstrates that our definition of rational changes as we discover new things as well. We will never be able to definitively say what is logical without a preexisting bias or societal expectation.
1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDelete-Knowledge does not always require a rational basis. In fact, a lot of the things that we know and perceive as real are simply based on our own, personal beliefs. When we experience certain bad situations or interactions, we tend to get a bad vibe or gut feeling that more often than not will control our behavior. It is difficult to explain the science behind such instinctive behavior, however it is something that almost all humans learn to trust. There is certainly a great deal of knowledge that we absorb from school and home that does require a rational basis, however in a sense, our irrational knowledge and beliefs have a heavy affect on how we view and perceive our more rational thoughts. Beliefs will always overpower the knowledge that we obtain through specific teaching and listening, as they evidently make us who we are. Although our beliefs may not always be completely rational, it is comforting to rely on them. We may not be able to explain them all, but in our own realities, we are correct.
Does knowledge require a rational basis?
ReplyDeleteWell, that depends on how you define knowledge. Does knowledge have to be factual? In my opinion, factual knowledge and emotional/experiential knowledge are two sides of the same coin. A statement with a rational basis can be categorized as factual knowledge because it has reason and evidence to back up the claim with a consistent and unchangeable answer. A simple example of this could be “one plus one equals two.” Yes, this statement can be overcomplicated and wormed around, but at it’s core, two is the simplest and most direct answer. Emotional or experiential knowledge can change completely based on the person you’re talking to. For example, let’s say two people go on a very large and fast roller coaster. One person is claustrophobic and afraid of heights, while the other is a daredevil who’s always seeking a new adventure. When the two get off the ride, one says it was the worst experience of their life and they would never recommend it to anyone, while the other says they can’t wait to ride it again. Their knowledge of the experience of the roller coaster isn’t based on anything but their emotions, does that mean they’re wrong?
4. Does the nature of reason vary across cultures? If so, explain how and why.
ReplyDeleteYes, because every culture has a unique way of being or thinking that separates it from another. Reasoning and decision making varies with how one was raised and what moral or ethical values were instilled within a community. Examples of different reasoning among cultures are very present even within the United States, as some families raise their children with a bias that another family’s contrasts to. It is natural that humans differ in reasoning; if not, why do we even have different cultures or things like wars and conflicting ideologies?
1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion knowledge does not. Knowledge can be seen taken in many different ways depending on the view one holds. We perceive many things to be true even without thinking it out "rationally", many beliefs we have are stemmed off of non factual or as some believe an irrational basis. Emotional knowledge is also a key to how people think. People can experience the same situations but have completely different outlooks at the end. What one takes away from say, a heartbreak can be completely opposite from what another person does but yet to them that is the knowledge they gained and live by. Knowledge is many times considered rational and to be supported by rational thinking bu there are many aspects that do not involve rational thought.
4. Yes, I do think the nature of reason varies across cultures. Every culture has a different way of looking and speaking of different issues or conversations. Reason and your way of thinking could have been easily persuaded by the type of culture that you grew up in. For example, in western society like the US, it is reasonable to assume that by the time you turn 18 (or even by the time you turn 19 or 20) you will move out of your parents home into your own independent space in which you pay for your own bills and supplies. But in Latino cultures you are not expected to move out. And you are especially not expected to move out if you're a woman, that is until you get married. Of course cultures change and assimilate to the current generations but I think it is safe to assume that reason varies within cultures.
ReplyDeleteDoes the nature of reason vary across cultures? If so, explain how and why.
ReplyDeleteThe nature of reason does vary across different cultures. Each individual culture has a unique way of going about different situations that life throws at us. Each culture has a tradition of a way of going about each event in life and this may be passed through multiple generations. Every culture believes that their personal way of doing things is "right" and they do not tend to agree or side with other cultures because of there obsession about the way that they do things and how they live their life. This can also be associated with religion. Usually, if a kid is born into a strong Christian family, the odds are they themselves will become devout Christians because they have spent there entire childhood with people that they trust and believe in. Reason can differ in more ways than one but it culture definitely plays a huge role in reason.
3. What may be meant by Nietzsche's comment that 'Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme which we cannot escape'?
ReplyDeleteI think he's challenging the idea of our lack of proof of our existence. We have this something we believe is a whole rational basis of understanding of the world around us, however this has been created in order to distinguish our lives and existences. It has been created to answer questions, but the answers we come to "rationally" are based off of a whole system we made up in order to try to find ration in this world we're not even sure exists. The scheme we cannot escape is our perception of the world and our existence. We cannot escape the confines of what we believe this world to be because anything else is incomprehensible. We rationalize in order to easy our minds. Everything we believe is what we have created off of a basis we also designed. What even is anything?
Does the nature of reason vary across cultures? If so, explain how and why.
ReplyDeleteYes and no. No in the sense that because human beings are all wired the same, we all use similar logic and reason when solving problems and interpreting data. However, culture plays a strong role in taking the knowledge we gain, and how we choose to interpret it. An example would be how people around the world perceive how they fit into society. The west, with strong liberal values, tend to view themselves as individuals, living in an individual society. Whereas people in North Korea, China, and Russia, see themselves as part of a collective (a piece in the machine) that puts society's needs before themselves. Neither is superior to either, but they play a role in how we view certain issues. New information on social rights are subjected to our cultural values, changing how we view the facts.
1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion no, knowledge does not ALWAYS require a rational basis on which it is built. Knowledge is objective as many claim to know one theory while others claim a seperate theory. If both are viable theories but neither is proven that does not dismiss their viability. Knowledge varies for each individual and sometimes personal knowledge for example I know I am in a good mood. Henceforth I possess knowledge no other human can affirm regarding my mental state. Sometimes I am just in a terrible mood for no reason at all. For many forms of knowledge I feel there should be a rational basis, but there are few exceptions such as emotions in which rationality does not play a major role.
3. What may be meant by Nietzsche's comment that 'Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme which we cannot escape'?
ReplyDeleteRational thoughts are thoughts that we have been told is the most correct or the most logical because society (which includes our selves of course) has shaped our understanding to be that. We know the color green is green and it represents nature so we inevitably think of nature being represented by color green when it is alive and in its healthiest state (generally speaking). This is backed up by science and thus we go through a process thinking “this grass is green, green is healthy so this is a healthy grass.” This is a syllogism which are valid facts drawn from reasonable interpretations due to what we know or information that is provided to us on the belief that it is correct. Logical thoughts follow the same rhythmic pattern in which we infer and conclude a statement in the same manners each time, similar to the syllogistic example that was given earlier. We cannot escape this arrangement of ideas because we have become wired to think in these steps. It is what makes the most sense to each one of us and that causes us to continuously go back to this scheme as Nietzsche said, because that is what we logically believe is the most rational.
1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteNo, knowledge does not always follow a rational basis. Humans are prone to influences, responses, and emotions that do not follow concrete reason. For example,being angry at a person does not follow a rational basis. Although the person may have done something unjust or cruel, being angry only perpetuates one's own unhappiness. The malicious person may even find pleasure in making others angry. Sometimes, people are compelled to express their anguish in a physical fight even if the other person is more likely to win and there is risk of injuring oneself. These responses are not formed in cold, calculated logic, but rather in the flawed human responses to social situation and environment. This experience of anguish and irrational behavior is a form of knowledge as it provides emotional and cultural information. However, the forms of knowledge that are valued in learning and education, and are often considered more valuable, are more rational. The scientific method, mathematical equations, and historical writing are based in logic, and become invalid if they lack rationality. When conducting a scientific experiment, on cannot allow emotion or arbitrary decisions to impact how they perform the procedures. Both logical and illogical ways of thinking and behaving impact people's knowledge. For, example, reading a novel is a way of gaining knowledge through its hidden messages. The story may have logic in how the characters interact and respond to one another, and the fundamental laws of physics often do not change. However, there must be some irrational thought to create a fantasy world and fictional characters. The existence of a creature that is a flying snake with an eye-patch and the muscled arms of a heavily tattooed man has no place in a solely rational world, but its involvement in a story, or simply imagining it is a form of knowledge.
Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis? I believe yes because regardless if you are making a guess you have most likely based it off of a irrelevant theory you have made or have come across, thus giving you multiple concepts and outlooks and then broadening your idea due to success or failure giving you more of a rational basis and creating more of a starting point then instead of where you began.
ReplyDelete1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteMost of the time this holds true. One knowing something usually stems from a rational basis. One cannot simply make claims about subjects without a logical understanding or backing of what is being said. To know something, one must be able to explain. To explain would need a logical standpoint in order to validate the claim. Without logic or reason, the knowledge would have little to no credibility at all.
1. No, of course not! If that were the truth than religion would not exist. In today's society, there is absolutely no rational basis behind the existence of a higher being except for the book that states it all, yet somehow a majority of people on this planet still believe in one. Another example could be seen in ghosts. So many people think that ghosts exist, but only because they think that they see silhouettes in the night, or maybe they confused the wind slamming their door shut with a ghost. Either way, they believe that ghosts exist among us on the sole evidence that they once saw one outside the window so they must exist. The same can be said for Bigfoot, which is also believed in by a surprising number of people, (including my Dad).
ReplyDelete4. Does the nature of reason vary across cultures? If so, explain how and why.
ReplyDeleteYes, the nature of reason definitely varies across culture. Many cultures and societies have different social priorities and ways of thinking. This can easily stem from a common belief that is shared within a culture, such as religion. This alone may cause a person to pick spending time with their family over hanging out with their friends, or vice versa. Each culture's opinions and beliefs in one way or another help shape the decisions that the individuals inside of it make.
Does the nature of reason vary across cultures? If so, explain how and why.
ReplyDeleteReason has many definitions to it. Everyone has different reasoning and it all comes from the values and morals your parents or the ones you grew up around you tought you. There are thousands of cultures all around the world and they all may take different conclusions to different situations. An easy example is that some students have school as a priority and give it their all, others do that but to a sport and give the sport their all and others go to school mainly to socialize and get by.
2. If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended, or can be shown to be irrational, should they be renounced?
ReplyDeleteJust because a claim cannot be defended, it should not be renounced. There are claims that a God or some other deity created the universe, while there is scientific evidence to indicate there was a Big Bang, however the God claim is not renounced. Some claims that are shown to be irrational such as historical ones such as “The earth is flat” provide important context to past scientific claims, which, in turn help historians build and extend their knowledge.
1. Knowledge does not necessarily entail truth or certainty, and therefore does not have to have a rational basis. Knowledge is simply a collection of ideas that an individual believes to be correct. It can be obtained through any of the 8 ways of knowledge, some of which are rational, some of which are not. Reason is the only one that is truly rational; language, memory, and sense perception possess elements of rationality; imagination, emotion, intuition, and faith have no rational basis. The fact that knowledge produced by irrational ways of knowing does not necessarily have an explanation does not change its validity in the minds of the possessors of that knowledge.
ReplyDelete1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteI agree that knowledge requires some kind of rational basis. If you only have knowledge without the rational basis how do you use that knowledge. With rationality you are able to apply your knowledge. When you go to court you know the know the laws and what is qualified to break the laws, but you need rationality to decide if the case is justified or not.
1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteI agree that knowledge requires some kind of rational basis. If you only have knowledge without the rational basis how do you use that knowledge. With rationality you are able to apply your knowledge. When you go to court you know the know the laws and what is qualified to break the laws, but you need rationality to decide if the case is justified or not.
4. Does the nature of reason vary across cultures? If so, explain how and why.
ReplyDeleteCultures are the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc. Considering this, I believe that because of the fact that every culture represents a different aspect of life, and the many amounts of different cultures, reasoning must vary across culture. Every person or society has their own quality and opinion to a certain situation, and there reasoning will be different across the many cultures because of this. A culture can hold its own belief and opinion, which will cause there reasoning to differ from those of another culture. For example, a person from a very religious culture such as a Catholic will have very different reasoning when it comes to the topic of abortion from say a culture who is pro-abortion. This will hold conflicts in the topic due to the different reasonings from different cultures.
Does the nature of reason vary across culture? If so explain how and why.
ReplyDeleteReason varies across cultures and societies because of the influence the people around us have. You decide create judgments and decisions based on what you have learned from your morals and family. In different cultures, societies have altered beliefs and morals which can change the way we understand things and our actions. People in different cultures also have different levels of knowledge which affects how we use our reasoning. Every culture and society has a different way of looking at situations and opinions which is why our reason varies across cultures.
1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteKnowledge does not require a rational basis because many things that people believe do not actually have evidence to support it. What things people know depend on what they personally believe based on their experiences. This therefore means not all beliefs or ideas need to have proven support for it to be known and true.
Knowledge does not always require some kind of rational basis or logic; it can sometimes be based on belief, experience, or intuition. For example, some people use their religious beliefs to justify their knowledge that some higher entity exists. Furthermore, a person can learn from a past experience, which expands their knowledge and allows them to make better decisions and reach better conclusions in the future. Although intuition cannot scientifically prove one’s knowledge, it can still be classified as knowledge and should not be valued lesser than knowledge based on a rational basis. When someone is walking through the woods late at night, they may have this “feeling” that something bad may happen to them. On some occasions, a person’s intuition is correct and proves them right about something. I do not think that knowledge should be less important or considered simply because it is not based upon a rational basis.
ReplyDelete1. Knowledge is not something that needs to be rationalized to everyone. Many people from different cultures have been raised to know many different thinks. The residents of India know that the sun is a god, that is just the way they have been raised.
ReplyDelete2. If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended, or can be shown to be irrational, should they be renounced?
ReplyDeleteWell who are we to say that everything we know or think we know is true. Same goes for those who oppose or try to show that ones way of thinking is irrational, who are they to judge. All knowledgeable claims ever made in the history of man can not be renounced. Although the knowledgeable idea proposed may be wrong to others, the idea still lives on. Knowledge of that idea still exists even if it is renounced. If claims can neither be defended nor proven irrational, then why would it be renounced. I understand that an idea is always good to throw out there if it has a reason to be out their, but if it can not be proven false or true than it is simply just a hypothesis, and always open for debate, and similar to a hypothesis, it can not be proven valid or invalid until further research, and research.
4. Does the nature of reason vary across cultures? If so, explain how and why.
ReplyDeleteYes the nature of reason does vary because our culture has a major influence on the way we think. Our entire education growing up is based on what our culture has taught us and we form our own reasons and opinions based off those teachings. Reasoning in the middle east for example is much different than that in the US. When looking at the other their is a lack of understanding as to why people do things but there needs to be a respect because different cultures have different beliefs and therefore different reasoning. No culture's reasoning is the right one which is why it is important that people grasp that and don't judge or discriminate a person's reasoning because they are from a different culture.
2. If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended, or can be shown to be irrational, should they be renounced?
ReplyDeleteSimply put: kinda. That seems a very vague answer to a very specific question, however, that is in essence the point. Consider these statements from the perspective of a human during the year 0 ce: 1) The Earth revolves elliptically around the stellar body, Sol. 2) Humans have the ability to spontaneously grow wings and spikes out of their butts. In both cases these statements seem highly irrational, and have no ability to be rationally defended. Now consider them from the perspective of a human in the year 2016 ce. Suddenly one of them, is rational, and easily explained with mathematical models. Yet, a human with a spiked-winged butt still seems outlandish/irrational. An idea is not necessarily false, if presently it cannot be proven true, however, an idea is not necessarily false if it cannot presently be proven true. In hindsight, it would have been stupid for humanity to renounce heliocentrism, however there is no ability for humans to have known this at that time. What ideas are fantastic yet true, and what ideas are fantastic yet false? To be frank, that’s not really a question that can be answered without trial and error.
2. If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended, or can be shown to be irrational, should they be renounced?
ReplyDeleteSimply put: kinda. That seems a very vague answer to a very specific question, however, that is in essence the point. Consider these statements from the perspective of a human during the year 0 ce: 1) The Earth revolves elliptically around the stellar body, Sol. 2) Humans have the ability to spontaneously grow wings and spikes out of their butts. In both cases these statements seem highly irrational, and have no ability to be rationally defended. Now consider them from the perspective of a human in the year 2016 ce. Suddenly one of them, is rational, and easily explained with mathematical models. Yet, a human with a spiked-winged butt still seems outlandish/irrational. An idea is not necessarily false, if presently it cannot be proven true, however, an idea is not necessarily false if it cannot presently be proven true. In hindsight, it would have been stupid for humanity to renounce heliocentrism, however there is no ability for humans to have known this at that time. What ideas are fantastic yet true, and what ideas are fantastic yet false? To be frank, that’s not really a question that can be answered without trial and error.
1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not feel that knowledge always needs to have some kind of rational basis. Knowledge is something that all people acquire and understand in their own unique way, and while there are some things that may be considered as universal knowledge, the way we personally interpret that knowledge can be totally different from other people. There is also the simple fact that while something may be true to one person in can be completely false to another, that doesn't mean that the knowledge is untrue or not worth acknowledging it just means that people can interpret things in their own way and there is no one right answer to every
question.
2. If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended, or can be shown to be irrational, should they be renounced?
ReplyDeleteNo, knowledge that cannot be rationally defended or that can be shown to be irrational should not be renounce. If a person’s favorite ice cream flavor is cookie dough, they know that fact about themselves but will not be able to prove it to anyone else. There is no test or proof of this, yet it is a piece of knowledge. They also might not have defined, rational reasons for why it is their favorite. They might enjoy other flavours but have decided that they, for no specific reason, like cookie dough the best. This kind of arbitrary choice is by definition irrational. There is no reason for this choice, yet we should not deny that the choice has been made. The same thought applies on a larger scale, with many opinions people form. Opinions are a kind of internal knowledge, and can be presented as fact to others, and yet many are often impossible to prove.
2. If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended, or can be shown to be irrational, should they be renounced?
ReplyDeleteNo, knowledge that cannot be rationally defended or that can be shown to be irrational should not be renounce. If a person’s favorite ice cream flavor is cookie dough, they know that fact about themselves but will not be able to prove it to anyone else. There is no test or proof of this, yet it is a piece of knowledge. They also might not have defined, rational reasons for why it is their favorite. They might enjoy other flavours but have decided that they, for no specific reason, like cookie dough the best. This kind of arbitrary choice is by definition irrational. There is no reason for this choice, yet we should not deny that the choice has been made. The same thought applies on a larger scale, with many opinions people form. Opinions are a kind of internal knowledge, and can be presented as fact to others, and yet many are often impossible to prove.
4. Yes, I believe that the nature of reason is universal and that it is a product of evolution and human nature. As humans, there are things that are bodies inherently know are harmful. Fire will burn and breakdown our skin, leaving us vulnerable, so it is reasonable that we not get too close, water will flood our lungs and drown us so it is reasonable that we not breathe underwater and so on. Truths like this we learn either through experiencing the resulting pain or watching someone else experience it but once we do experience it our mind knows not to repeat it. These physical reactions and survival methods remain true across countries and cultures and the result is a type of reasoning not to repeat our mistakes that we all seem to have. Another form of universal reasoning is the reasoning we have when it comes to the survival of our race: motherly and familial affection, the choice to continue activities that bring us pleasure, the drive to form communities and work together to survive and again so on and so forth. While many of our personal reasonings and justifications are unique and form individual ethical codes, the inherent ability to reason is bred into us as a defense mechanism and exists across nations. Without reason, we would be hard pressed to innovate or find motivation and its existence allows us to connect to and support our own decisions.
ReplyDelete1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteIt depends on what one defines knowledge as. Someone in sixteenth century Europe can claim that the sun revolves around the earth because they see it go around the earth every day. Someone in the contemporary world can disagree because of the knowledge that they have access to now. We can look back on someone from the sixteenth century and be baffled by some of the things they did or believed in. This also does not go into faith based knowledge. Rationality is not needed however rationality also differs from person to person.
ReplyDelete1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
Yes, true knowledge requires a base that can be validated with logic, or reason. Knowledge that doesn't have a basis in rationality cannot be trusted and cannot be used or qualified as knowledge. If there is no rational basis there's no validity. Even emotions have a basis in rationality because we react and emote to ourselves and our environment and therefore emotions can be predicted to some extent. Due to that, there is some rational basis in emotion, which makes it a valid area of knowledge.
2. If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended, or can be shown to be irrational, should they be renounced?
Yes, because without being rationally defended and being irrational makes them have no base that can be verified. Without verification we cannot call the knowledge claim knowledge, it is merely a claim or a assumption and as an assumption can be disregarded. When we call something a knowledge claim, it implies that it can be proven, and without being rational there is no clear cut way to prove the claim.
Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteNo, knowledge does not require a rational basis. There are numerous times where we know things, but have no way of explaining how we know. A lot of things that people know and believe is based on their personal beliefs, rather than logic. Knowledge is knowledge whether it’s rational or irrational. The fact that we know something is knowledge. An example knowledge not being rational is religion. People believe in religions that do not have any rational basis.
Does the nature of reason vary across cultures? If so, explain how and why.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the nature of reason varies across culture. As a human living within a society, we are influenced by our surroundings. We are influenced by our parents, by our friends, by authority, and even through social media. These influences vary widely throughout other cultures. And since there is this wide variety of influences, many times we are brought up and taught different morals than someone in another countries. These morals can alter your own personal form of reasoning and lead you to a conclusion that people in other countries may not have deducted. Thus showing a variation in reasoning across countries.
Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteI believe that knowledge requires some kind of rational basis to a certain extent. Like another blog response that I wrote, it depends on how you define knowledge. If knowledge is something that you know to be absolutely true, then I think that knowledge does require rational basis. However, take the bible for example. If an individual has read and memorized many stories from the bible, we would refer to them as knowledgeable of the bible, however are they truly knowledgeable? Nothing that is in the bible is proven fact, yet some of the morals that can be taken from the bible are valuable. What I am trying to say is that knowledge in a way is in the eye of the beholder. What is rational to some people may not be rational to others. I believe that knowledge does need some sort of rational basis to be true, but it does not need a universal rational understanding to be true. Another example is someones favorite food. To that person, they know on a rational basis that it is their favorite food and they therefore have knowledge of that. However, to someone else, there is no rational basis that that specific food the other person likes is their favorite food and therefore they have no knowledge. It all comes down to the fact that life is only true and real in the eye of the beholder. We live in our own realities and because of this, what we personally hold to be rationally true translates into our personal knowledge.
I believe that all knowledge require some kind of rational basis. The reason is that we live daily lives with reasoning which should consist logic. For instance, math is a subjuect which should always have logic to support the reasoning. If mathematics does not consist any logic, math problems cannot be solved. However, in art, logic is not always necessary because people should use their emotions and instinct feelings to evaluate art pieces but if you like an art piece, you should reason why you like which consists logic. In my opinion, I find logic is very important in our lives. The reason is that if logic does not exist in the world, all of our statment would be not reliable. It will be very hard to believe people if there is not any logics.
ReplyDelete1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteNo, knowledge does not always require some sort of rational basis. When it comes to emotions and how you feel, it is not always rational, but it is how you feel and you understand how you feel. You cannot control your emotions no matter how rational or irrational they are, but you can recognize them and know about them. Going along with emotion, intuition is not rational based. Intuition is based solely on how you feel and what your gut tells you. It is hard to explain the logic of behind that feeling, but it is there. I do think that although some knowledge does not need to be rationally based, but some also does. When it comes to logic and scientific things, then I believe that it has to be proved. I believe that what can be proven, should require some kind of rational basis, but what cannot, is still valuable knowledge.
3. 3. What may be meant by Nietzsche's comment that 'Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme which we cannot escape'?
ReplyDeleteNietzsche is well known for destroying the concept of reason. 'Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme which we cannot escape' Here, Nietzsche deconstructs reason as rational thinking based off of a certain perspective. In this definition, reason does not affect anything but to "cognize" them. To Nietzsche, reason is a tool for theorists to distort the truth to fit the perspective of them or the party in question. Obviously, Nietzsche is a pessimist... and this is evident in his opinion that knowledge is a tool to satisfy the fact that humans do not desire truth at all, but "the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth" (On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, 81). Inevitability in the scheme of our reality forces the purpose of reason to be biased.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?
ReplyDeleteKnowledge almost always requires a kind of rational basis when it is relevant to the world around us and understanding the logical world. However as people are inherently not logical and ruled by emotion, they do not always behave rationally, requiring irrational knowledge and basis in interacting with them. Psychology does not always require a rational basis, yet it's knowledge and applications are undeniable in their validity.
2. If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended, or can be shown to be irrational, should they be renounced?
If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended but still found to be valid and correct, no matter how irrational it may seem, they should still be accepted. Unfortunately some things cannot be logically understood or rationally defended, because they exist in such a way that makes it impossible to do so, while the information is still true and the knowledge sound. However if there is no truth or correctness to the knowledge and it is irrational, it should be renounced as it has no bearing on knowledge.
1. For the most part knowledge will always require a rational basis but you get those few instances where knowledge is completely irrational and you don't know why or you can't explain it. I feel like it is probably because we have always been taught to think logically so that when something happens that's irrational then it messes us up and we get confused.
ReplyDelete2. If knowledge claims can't be rationally defended, I don't think that it means that they should be renounced because even if there's a knowledge claim that seems completely irrational it should still be listened to and accepted because it could end up being very important one day because times are always changing.