Reason as controlling force of the universe

[REASON]

So, the title of this thread is not far off. The ancient Greeks would say logos is ontological. Or, only things that make sense or are logical can be real. That was a big step forward in rationally understanding the universe. It was a rejection of mysticism.

 

So with this in mind, what do you think of my suggestion to rewrite the statement to: Reason as the guiding principle of the universe?

 

Is this something that better conveys the sentiment without attracting so much resistance?

[modest]

So with this in mind, what do you think of my suggestion to rewrite the statement to: Reason as the guiding principle of the universe?

 

Is this something that better conveys the sentiment without attracting so much resistance?

 

Oh yes, I absolutely agree. "Controlling force" is just all wrong. I agree with you and Boerseun 100 percent on that. In fact, I personally would rather say something along the lines of "Reason is a guiding principle in understanding the universe", but I understand that is not exactly the concept Hydrogenbond, MikeC, and Nutronjon want to convey.

 

I think what you say there would probably be more agreeable to both sides and yet still get across the same idea. :cup:

 

-modest

[InfiniteNow]

So with this in mind, what do you think of my suggestion to rewrite the statement to: Reason as the guiding principle of the universe?

 

Is this something that better conveys the sentiment without attracting so much resistance?

 

We're definitely getting into the territory of split hairs, but I might change your comment to:

 

Reason should be a guding principle in people's understanding of the universe.

 

If it can't be measured or modelled mathematically, it's not controlling or guiding anything other than people's perceptions.

[modest]

I personally would rather say something along the lines of "Reason is a guiding principle in understanding the universe"

 

I might change your comment to:

Reason should be a guding principle in people's understanding of the universe.

 

Great minds think alike :cup:

 

-modest

[freeztar]

I agree IN.

I think the key qualifier is "people's understanding". The universe at large does not need reason to guide it. In other words, reason deals with the effect rather than the cause.

[REASON]

Yes.....to what each of you have said. I wholeheartedly agree.

 

And I don't really think it's splitting hairs as any opportunity for clarification in communication should be welcomed.

[modest]

I think an interesting aspect of this topic is determinism versus indeterminism.

 

If we are accepting that things don't just happen in our universe, but that they rather need a well defined cause then that is very much like the kind of causal determinism that Einstein argued for with his famous "God doesn't play dice".

 

On the other hand, if things do just happen without a "reason" then that is more like the philosophical indeterminism that Neils Bohr and the other key figures of quantum mechanics advocated.

 

Philosophically I agree with Einstein while scientifically I accept the Copenhagen school of thought. Seems like a contradiction :)

 

-modest

[Thunderbird]

I just posted these in the “Who’s your favorite philosophers” thread but I thought I would put them in here too and see if a could stir up some controversy.

"In order to follow the path of knowledge, one has to be very imaginative. On the path of knowledge, nothing is as clear as we'd like it to be"

 

One of the key reasons that things are not clear on the path of knowledge is that we are relying too much upon reason. We think everything must add up in some Newtonian understanding of the universe. But, we now know things that Newton never knew and one of the things we know is that we cannot ever really know everything. Life is far more mysterious and our lives are governed by forces beyond even our imagination.

 

"The greatest flaw of human beings is to remain glued to the inventory of reason. Reason doesn't deal with man as energy. Reason deals with instruments that create energy, but it has never seriously occurred to reason that we are better than instruments: we are organisms that create energy. We are bubbles of energy.”

 

Carlos Castaneda

[Thunderbird]

I think an interesting aspect of this topic is determinism versus indeterminism.

 

If we are accepting that things don't just happen in our universe, but that they rather need a well defined cause then that is very much like the kind of causal determinism that Einstein argued for with his famous "God doesn't play dice".

 

On the other hand, if things do just happen without a "reason" then that is more like the philosophical indeterminism that Neils Bohr and the other key figures of quantum mechanics advocated.

 

Philosophically I agree with Einstein while scientifically I accept the Copenhagen school of thought. Seems like a contradiction :)

 

-modest

Forrest Gump also came to that conclusion. :)

“I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze. But I think maybe it's both. Maybe both are happening at the same time.”

[InfiniteNow]

Great minds think alike :hihi:

 

-modest

 

That's awesome. We were even typing at the same time. :D

 

I wouldn't go so far as to consider myself having a great mind, but I think I'm gifted to have good filters. :edepress:

 

 

Cheers. ;)

[Boerseun]

"Splitting hairs?"

 

You ain't seen nothing yet.

 

I don't see why we should drag the entire universe into this. A simple principle reduced to its simplest elements need not state the obvious. Where in E=mc2 did Einstein write a footnote saying "This formula is appliccable to the entire universe. I rule!"

 

I would say the following:

 

"Reason is dissecting causality."

 

Put that in ya pipe an' smoke it.

[freeztar]

Put that in ya pipe an' smoke it.

 

Give me one good reason...

[Southtown]

I dont understand your questions. Do you mean 'how can you think?'? are you suggesting the answer would be that I'm a thinking organism as a consequence of Darwinian evolution?

Sorry to be so vague and to be so late in replying. I post while intoxicated, please forgive me. I think I meant to convey that morality doesn't normally stem from the naturalistic worldview. Sorry, again, for being unclear.

[ughaibu]

Sorry, again, for being unclear.

No problem, thanks for explaining.