r/rationalphilosophy

…is the fact that philosophy is not inherently rational, and is not synonymous with rationality, but that it must justify its claims like everyone else.

Just because one has a philosophy doesn’t mean their philosophy is rational, or that it has anymore substance beyond an abstract castle floating in the sky. In their presumptuousness philosophy and theology are very much the same. Most of them are just authoritarian ideologies demanding the highest allegiance of respect without actually earning it.

You can’t refute the laws of logic, no one can, because the act of refuting them requires them.

But you can refute people who use them fallaciously.

There is one tactic that certain schools of thought who use these laws tend to commit, be they Christian Apologists or Ayn Randians:

While the laws themselves are certain, that doesn’t make the leap one takes from them certain.

Apologists, for example, use these laws to establish truth and then attempt to insinuate that their religious beliefs are synonymous with the truth of these laws.

Ayn Randians do the same thing, except they leap to an economic theology.

This is called a Non-Sequitur Fallacy, it means the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. It’s an irrational leap, but exceedingly effective when paired with the laws of logic.

So while we can’t refute a person who argues for the truth of the laws of logic (we can only agree with them) we can refute any irrational leaps they take from the premise of these laws. And we can only do it because of these laws.

Anyone who thinks they’re operating outside these laws simply manifests that they’re ignorant. They are being deceived by an irrational narrative that can’t even make itself intelligible without these laws.

Because we must first accept the fact that reality is true and the laws of logic are the standards of truth.

A real conversation begins with a simple premise: reality exists independent of our feelings, preferences, or political loyalties. If we cannot agree that there is an objective world to discover rather than one to invent, then we are not debating the same reality (we are speaking from separate worlds, one person thus existing in a world of delusion).

We must affirm the absolute authority of the laws of logic that we already presuppose. The laws of logic are not optional conventions; they are the rules that make meaning possible. Without them, words lose their definitions, contradictions become acceptable, and language can no longer distinguish truth from falsehood.

Only then is it possible to have a real discourse. The purpose of conversation is not to score points, defend identities, or gather applause. It is an honest and shared search for what is true based on logical standards. That requires a willingness to let evidence correct us, reason guide us, and reality overrule us when we are wrong.

That is correct. But Socrates is not merely saying things,

He’s reasoning.

More precisely, he is reasoning according to the laws of logic.

That is what gives his words their force. It is why his questions corner his opponents, expose contradictions, and cut through confusion. His arguments are powerful not because of rhetoric, but because they are governed by principles that all meaning already depends on.

When someone speaks without regard for logic, words lose their ability to communicate truth. They become disconnected sounds rather than coherent thought.

Take those who say, "The Law of Identity is false." Their statement already assumes what it denies. The terms in the sentence must retain the same meaning from beginning to end; otherwise, the sentence has no definite content. If the words do not keep their identity, nothing has been asserted in the first place. The denial depends on the very principle it attempts to reject.

Socrates understands this.

He insists on clear definitions. He requires that terms keep the same meaning throughout an argument. He refuses to let contradictions be rhetorically elevated to “insight.” His method works because it remains anchored to the laws of thought.

Just as the certainty of "2 + 2 = 4" presupposes the Law of Identity, every meaningful discussion of justice, virtue, or truth presupposes the same logical foundation. Without it, reasoning collapses into ambiguity and contradiction.

Socrates does not prevail because he is cleverer than everyone else. He prevails because he refuses to abandon the conditions that make rational discussion possible. He follows an argument wherever logic leads, he takes logic seriously, and when his opponents abandon logical consistency, their position collapses under its own contradictions.

So yes, Socrates is “just saying things.” But his words have weight because they are disciplined by logic. They are not merely expressions of opinion; they are attempts to conform thought to reality. That is why his arguments continue to endure— it’s not because they’re philosophical, it’s because they’re logical!

Prosperity makes us philosophical, otherwise we have to struggle for bread and butter.

Where are you trying to go with philosophy?

Most are trying to get —->

Amusement.

Only a few confess this.

But know this as early as possible (if this is what you’re actually trying to get out of reading philosophy)

Because

You would likely be better off spending your limited life enjoying video games, which are interactive.

You obviously want your reading of philosophy to take you somewhere, or impart something to you, what exactly is that thing?

You want to be able to do something with philosophical words and premises, to be able to wield them in specific contexts, unto what end?

Science has your philosophy beat, which is why many philosophy readers don’t like it and seek to attack its authority with sophistry.

Science takes away the philosopher’s power.

A philosopher is to a Reasoner what a Kung Fu fighter is to an MMA fighter. While the Kung Fu fighter is doing a bunch of flashy forms, the MMA fighter goes straight for the kill (simply beats his sophist-posturing-ass) as soon as they enter the ring.

So I was thinking that instead of saying knowledge primarily comes from sensory experience, I think it better to say that knowledge is acquired through experience. The difference being that instead of through the senses any kind of experience the brain undergoes it can learn from.

For instance math, to aquire mathematical knowledge your brain must experience doing the calculation or experience learning the formula. The same can be said of knowledge acquired through rational investigation, your brain must experience the chain of reasoning to illicit knowledge from it.

I view this as a way to combine rationalism with empiricism, rather than holding them as separate and saying which thing knowledge "primarily" comes from. Any criticisms of this idea? For instance is it too general as to make a subscription to empiricism meaningless or does it stand?

Difference is essential to knowledge. But difference is just the identity of things that are equal to themselves. Difference emerges from identity, identity does not emerge from difference.

One wants to say, “then everything would just be A=A=A=A=A.” Not at all. Because the identity of A is not the same as B— precisely because of identity, not difference!

Hegel treats "Difference" as if it is an independent, mystical force that enters the room to carve up reality. But Difference is a demarcation of reality that’s made possible only by Identity.

For A to be different from B, A must first strictly possess the identity of being A, and B must strictly possess the identity of being B. The "difference" between them isn't a third thing floating between them.

Difference is simply the mathematical result of counting two distinct, self-equal identities.

If A did not equal A, it wouldn't have enough structural integrity to be different from anything else. It would just be an indefinable mush of meaninglessness. (There cannot be a relationship of difference between two things that do not first possess a rigid, independent identity).

Hegel panics and thinks that if Identity is primary, the universe collapses into a boring, meaningless monolithic sheet of identical matter (A=A=A=A).

But Identity is actually the very thing that guarantees multiplicity and variety, it is the very reason why difference exists.

In this video, the commentator talks about how The Skeptics Annotated Bible can be used as a resource by English teachers.

“Scientism” is a pejorative not an argument or refutation.

While there are outlandish positions one could assign this word to, one has to make sure these are not straw men.

The way the term “scientism” is used, is both as a genetic and poisoning of the well fallacy. The one using it is trying to negatively characterize science so that it will simply be dismissed, and they can smuggle in their supernatural or metaphysical assertions. (Rather than doing the hard work of having to directly engage with scientific discoveries and conclusions).

While religious apologists deploy this tactic without fail, philosophers are probably even greater practitioners of this fallacious technique. (One merely has to note the one-sided motivated skepticism at work in the philosophy of science).

At the core of the motivation lies insecurity. The supernaturalist and philosophical speculator are threatened by the power and authority of science within the context of knowledge (as they rightly should be, insofar as it replaces their inferior methods of knowledge).

So what does it reference? It either references an empirical fact, in which case one should be able to supply straightforward evidence for it, or it references a logical procedure or step, in which case it cannot contradict the laws of logic that govern and make possible all logical procedures and steps.

A question that has always occupied my mind is what does truth mean?