Question

Disclaimer: I'm not a philosopher and I'm not a native speaker, so apologies if my question is somehow flawed as a result. I'm happy to clarify anything that is unclear. So here it is:

Reason's own standards of justification require that any claim meet objective criteria independent of the believing subject. But reason cannot justify itself according to these standards. It cannot provide an objective, non-circular proof of its own legitimacy and authority. Using reason to show that reason is indeed reliable is like asking a man whether or not he is honest. In either way he'll say that he is.

So it relies on an initial "act of faith". From a purely rational perspective, this seems problematic and suggests reason falls short of its own criteria for knowledge and justification. It fails to meet the very standards it sets for other claims. Doesn't this reveal a kind of "irrationalism" at the core of rationalism - an inability of reason to be fully self-critical and self-grounding according to the objectivity it demands of other beliefs? I got the intuition if you have to begin with an act of faith, everything that follows is spoiled by it.

I know one might object that one cannot conclude from this argument that reason is indeed unreliable or at least dubious as it uses reason itself to make this point. It would be self-defeating to do so. On the other hand, it might be thought of as a reductio. We take reason's premises and bring them to their logical conclusion. Is this really self-defeating? And even if it were, is this worse than the circularity or the ad-hoc assumptions that the "defender of reason" would have to rely on?

It seems to me that the worst result the reason skeptic has to expect here is an impasse. And I don't think that this is problematic for the skeptic as she doesn't need to "win" the argument, it's sufficient for her that the anti-skeptic doesn't win either. If the question remains undecided, doubt remains. The draw is a win for the skeptic, so to speak.

I would really like to read your thoughts on this. So thanks in advance for your replies.

Answer 1

Philosophical skepticism questions the self-justification of reason, suggesting an 'act of faith' at its core. While reason may be circular, this does not invalidate it entirely; a pragmatic approach accepts justified knowledge without absolute certainty. Skepticism can encourage critical analysis without necessarily rejecting knowledge acquisition.

Step-by-step explanation:

The legitimacy of reason is a fundamental question in philosophy, particularly within the area of epistemology. Your query touches upon the notion that reason may seem to require an 'act of faith' since it cannot justify itself without being circular. This problem, often referred to as the Munchhausen Trilemma, suggests that our reasoning is based on certain axiomatic beliefs or circular justifications, which can be seen as a form of 'irrationalism' at the core of rationalism. It challenges the idea that reason can be completely self-justifying in an objective sense.

The skeptic's position highlights a potential impasse, arguing that uncertainty undermines reason's authority. Yet, this stance may not necessarily discredit reason outright but rather invites a deeper examination of its underlying assumptions. Furthermore, a healthy skepticism can be positive if it promotes careful critique and deliberation without rejecting the pursuit of knowledge outright. It is worth noting that while deductive reasoning can lead to certainty if the premises are true, inductive reasoning, which is more common, cannot guarantee truth due to its probabilistic nature.

In the face of such challenges, some philosophers opt for a more pragmatic approach, accepting that while absolute certainty may not be achievable, it is not required for justifiable knowledge. This approach holds that we do not need to resolve the circularity issue to continue applying reason and gaining knowledge.