peter m asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 4 weeks ago

How would we disprove the ideas of someone who denies rationality? Is it possible?

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 days ago

    Rationality is subjective. To the mad man a sane person is seen as mad. :)

  • 4 weeks ago

    If he finds that 1+1 is 2, then rationality exists. If he doesn't, then he's being irrational, because mathematical logic exists by itself and doesn't depend on the rationality of a society's limited culture and values.

  • 4 weeks ago

    you mean like people that believe in supernatural gods?

  • One markedly stunning example of irrationality are Jihadists. They accept an irrational set of beliefs, reasoning upon dogma, rather than their own real self-interests. They may think they are doing it for reward but wanting to die for some reward after-life is markedly irrational. There is not much that can be done to persuade them out of their irrationality, to disprove them might be possible, but to persuade them is far more difficult. Its possible to disprove the ideas of someone who denies rationality, but getting them to accept the rational ideas is something else. Some people's ideas are mythological, not necessary irrational, so these types may be disproved but still remain understanding the world through mythological concepts/ideas. 

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Mike W
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    Your question assumes that they're irrational.  Maybe it's you who are irrational.  

  • j153e
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    It is rational to understand the meaning of one's terms.

    Being rational implies ratio, or the reasoned application of a specified metric among two or more sets of information.

    The PIE root of which ratio, rational, and reason arise is *re-, to count, to reckon.

    Rationality is reasonableness, which, as stated above, is the ability to apply a metric among two or more sets of information.

    Information <--- inform <--- form <--- Latin forma, a pattern, model, essential structure or manner.

    Information theory defines information, in a more inclusive, i.e., post-Shannon, sense, as the ability of a given sensing system to detect or discern invariant structural patterns in a categorical stimulus mode (thus the resolution of pre-Shannon and Shannon notions of information).

    Again, to reiterate, reason or ratiocination is discerning correlative structural patterns among two or more sets of information.

    A denial by B of a given reason or ratiocination claim by A is the partial or complete negation of A's claim of discernment of correlative structural patterns among two or more sets of information.  (PIE root *ne-, not.)

    All of the above ought be axiomatic when elucidating what is reason.

    Understanding that all information sets are imperfect, i.e., lack completeness (e.g., per Godel, in logics; per physics, in quantum measurement, and so on), have unprovable truth/falsity claims within the given axiomized system, and lack total knowledge (i.e., have unknowns) bases the general history of philosophies' argumentations:  one philosopher, A, may posit her axiomized system, and another philosopher notes in A's philosophy the unknowns, the unprovable truth/falsity claims, and, more commonly, questions the axioms and/or subsequent systematic development or lack of development of said axioms (obvious truths all agree with).  A higher-level of disagreement or lack of acceptance of bijected reasonability claims occurs in the general area of the second-level (and third-level, etc.) von Neumann framing or correlating of two or more structural patterns' claim to a jointly-based stimulus categoriality (in lay terms, the problem of comparing apples and oranges, with a second-degree framing of fruit and/or colored objects and/or spheres (balls, in math-speak), etc.).

    Therefore, to answer "Peter M's" question as to the possibility of A's refuting a denial by B of A's affirmative re a posited reasonable relationship among two or more information sets, it is first necessary to establish a jointly-held consensus of A and B as to what constitutes the specific information sets, their limits as to reliability, accuracy, axiomization bases, the degree of (in)completeness acceptable, etc.  This kind of reasoning is evidenced among the more professional types of discussion, in any discipline, from theology and philosophy to maths and logics, to physics and chemistries, etc., etc.  It is unreasonable and logically unclear to attempt to posit comparison of information sets of any kind without such prior consensus.

  • 4 weeks ago

    You couldn't defeat them by rational argument, but you might defeat them by ridicule. Just take their denial at face value, and every time they say something, reply with a ridiculous answer. At its most basic, rationality is what allows words to have meaning, so if you deny rationality you deny all meaning to words and conversation becomes an incoherent jumble of meaningless sounds.

  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago

    In limited cases, perhaps it is possible, but history has amply demonstrated that the desire to impose rationality on people or society is a fundamentally irrational endeavour. 

  • P
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    Yes. Calmly and rationally explain how a firearm works. Then demonstrate

  • Dejair
    Lv 6
    4 weeks ago

    Well ; affirming ourselves we must defend our happiness, then demonstrating happiness we win the discussion without violate the minds of others. Intense love, profound peace, infinite gladness !

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.