If someone were to command to you, "Reason," with no further support, what could you do? Could you progress towards anything simply by reasoning? Do you not need something to reason about in addition to the rules of logic? Is not some of the content to be reasoned about going to be assumed true without any further justification. Does not this imply that the lynch pin of everything rational is non-rational?
If one is to reason meaningfully about anything, one must accept certain content to be reasoned about as true, i.e., really existing as conceived. Can that ever be verified? If so, certainly not in the same way that the outcome of reasoning can be verified, i.e., against the facts. Certain facts we must assume to arrive at other facts, and assumptions in themselves are not certain. They may be plausible or justifiable, but they are not certain.
For example, the fact that sense data is generally reliable is in itself uncertain. It requires an appeal to a measure distinct from sense data and reality with which to assess reliability. Drawing upon the validity of "common sense," will not suffice, unless it is simply assumed to be valid. Upon assumption, it is admitted into belief on less than certain grounds.
Foundations are unavoidable; foundations are uncertain.
No comments:
Post a Comment