Is certain truth discoverable by reason alone or not?

[blase6]

I am asking this because almost every argument against my conception of solipsism involves in some way, a sort of abandoning of logical thought.

Basically I have concluded from long thought that these are some of the only things I can conclude are certainly and objectively real:

1. Existence.
2. Experiences.
3. Me.

Everything else, no matter how much evidence, cannot be founded on absolute logic but only on reasonable evidence which suggests that it is true.

Most people don’t have a problem with that, and accept that the rationality of such conclusions about absolute reality are practically certain. But I do not. I am devoted to finding how things are absolutely correct with no possibility of error.

(If you frequent this thread, you probably already knew that.

My question is: Do Catholic theologians generally believe that God gave human beings the ability to think rationally so that they could come to the certain truth about things at least from reason alone? Or do they believe in a sort of “certain truth” which comes from all the experiences of a person?

If the former is correct, then that raises problems with my search for certain truth, which isn’t working out.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Why have you narrowed it down to only two ways of knowing, and why does it have to be one or the other?

Some truths we know by experience, some by a logical process, some on authority. Some, in addition to those, require supernatural faith.

Sorry I don’t have any theologians off the top of my head, but FYI, the First Vatican Council teaches:

Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason. (cf. Catechism 36)

 

[blase6]

Why have you narrowed it down to only two ways of knowing, and why does it have to be one or the other?

Some truths we know by experience, some by a logical process, some on authority. Some, in addition to those, require supernatural faith.

Sorry I don’t have any theologians off the top of my head, but FYI, the First Vatican Council teaches:

Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason. (cf. Catechism 36)

To know something, according to my own definition, means that you are absolutely certain it is correct because for it to be not correct is absolutely impossible.

 

[JamalChristophr]

My question is: Do Catholic theologians generally believe that God gave human beings the ability to think rationally so that they could come to the certain truth about things at least from reason alone? Or do they believe in a sort of “certain truth” which comes from all the experiences of a person?

Forgive me if I can’t tell you what Catholic theologians generally believe, but my own personal perspective is essentially different from your foundational view.

To me, almost everything involves some leap of faith in a manner of speaking. How can one really be certain of anything? You may not exist at all, perhaps you are just part of my dream.

I think God gave us reason because it is something that God possesses. But we possess it in a highly imperfect way, it seems, compared to God. Our reason is limited. We come to God, which is our raison d’etre, though Faith and Reason. Certitude teeters, I think, around the very personal choice of each human being. When I think about certain truth, it tends to disorient me.

I just try to remember that Christ said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” And it is this path that I choose to follow and believe in- more accurately, a person, but also a path.

Going back to your question again, I recall the catechism saying something along the same lines as the idea you put forth that man does come to a certain knowledge of the truth or of God by reason alone, but it does not take him far enough. A bird needs wings, to soar just as man needs Faith and Reason to come to God. (JPII)

Sorry, that probably was not helpful to you, but your question is an interesting one.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Most people don’t have a problem with that, and accept that the rationality of such conclusions about absolute reality are practically certain.

Does this fact carry no force with you? Why do you doubt most people but not your own judgment? Are you the smartest person on the planet?

 

[blase6]

Does this fact carry no force with you? Why do you doubt most people but not your own judgment? Are you the smartest person on the planet?

I am the only person I have certainly. Everyone else is not certain, so they do not have absolute credibility unless I can know they are real certainly.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

But you make decisions all the time, live your life, with far less than 100% certainty.

 

[blase6]

But you make decisions all the time, live your life, with far less than 100% certainty.

And that drives me crazy, because I may just be in an illusion at some point, and I would never know for sure.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

I wish you peace, friend. May God grant you deep peace in your soul, and peace of mind in Christ our Lord.

 

[Lucy107]

Most people don’t have a problem with that, and accept that the rationality of such conclusions about absolute reality are practically certain. But I do not. I am devoted to finding how things are absolutely correct with no possibility of error.

If you accept that you are a dependent, contingent being,
then by implication, you must also accept that on your own power and efforts, you are not able to find absolute certainty.

 

[Bahman]

I am asking this because almost every argument against my conception of solipsism involves in some way, a sort of abandoning of logical thought.

Basically I have concluded from long thought that these are some of the only things I can conclude are certainly and objectively real:

1. Existence.
2. Experiences.
3. Me.

Well you are missing some parts. You are (3). You experience (2). There exist illusion/existence (1). You can decide (you are missing this). You can change existence (you are missing this too).

 

[blase6]

Well you are missing some parts. You are (3). You experience (2). There exist illusion/existence (1). You can decide (you are missing this). You can change existence (you are missing this too).

At the basic level there really is no different in the reality of an illusion and the reality of the “real world”. Being able to even talk about illusions proves that they exist at least as a concept in one’s own mind.

And oh yes, the idea of Change, that drove some ancient philosophers goofy.

 

[MPat]

I am asking this because almost every argument against my conception of solipsism involves in some way, a sort of abandoning of logical thought.

Basically I have concluded from long thought that these are some of the only things I can conclude are certainly and objectively real:

1. Existence.
2. Experiences.
3. Me.

You can? How? Are you assuming that your memory accurately shows what you thought a second ago? And are you assuming that you are able to reason logically?

For if you are assuming those things, what prevents you from making more assumptions?

And if you are not assuming those things, have you proved them? Otherwise their absence prevents any argument from being certain. Even “I think, therefore I exist.” - how do you know you have concluded that you think and not that you do not think? And maybe the reasoning “A & (A=>B) => B” is wrong and you only think otherwise because of some malfunctioning neuron?

As you can see, if nothing is given, you can reach no perfectly certain conclusions. Even solipsism has to assume something.

Everything else, no matter how much evidence, cannot be founded on absolute logic but only on reasonable evidence which suggests that it is true.

Really? And how exactly have you proved that? It was not on your list, therefore you cannot be certain that nothing else can be proved.

Most people don’t have a problem with that, and accept that the rationality of such conclusions about absolute reality are practically certain. But I do not. I am devoted to finding how things are absolutely correct with no possibility of error.

Well, they are right and you are wrong.

Since complete scepticism leads nowhere anyway, is supported by no evidence at all and is somewhat self-defeating, there is nothing wrong with adding some reasonable assumptions.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Human reason is just an illusion… all that there is is spirit, both good and evil.

 

[davidv]

Human reason is just an illusion… all that there is is spirit, both good and evil.

This is in direct opposition to the teaching of the Churches.

47 The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 § 1: DS 3026),

 

[CommonWeal]

Solipsism is from the devil. Be very careful friend.

 

[Robert_Sock]

This is in direct opposition to the teaching of the Churches.

All truth must come from God, not human reason. Philosophers beware, you should turn your attention to Contemplative Prayer.

 

[davidv]

All truth must come from God, not human reason. Philosophers beware, you should turn your attention to Contemplative Prayer.

Some truth is also accessible through human reason. It is not one or the other. It is both/and.

 

[PseuTonym]

“Discoverable” is a strange or odd concept. After one person discovers some idea, other people can convince themselves that they could have discovered it. However, if we want to investigate what is involved in discovering ideas, then we need to set up a situation where some community is isolated from everybody who has already acquired familiarity with the idea via transmission directly or indirectly from the person who actually discovered the idea.

Given the context provided by the first message of your thread, I consider “discoverable by reason alone” to be extremely strange. I consider it to be much more strange than “discoverable.” Let me explain why. First, we need to look at the context:

“Everything else, no matter how much evidence, cannot be founded on absolute logic but only on reasonable evidence which suggests that it is true.”

“I am devoted to finding how things are absolutely correct with no possibility of error.”

It sounds as though you are talking about using deductive reasoning to justify some conclusions. However, there are at least two problems with this. One problem is that to arrive at a conclusion, there needs to be at least one assumption. The other problem is that if we are talking about the kind of reasoning that allows one to discover trains of thought and pursue or investigate those trains of thought, then we are not talking about merely deductive reasoning.

It is possible that there is something incoherent about what you were thinking when you wrote the title of the thread. Of course, it would be possible to rewrite the title of the thread to hide the incoherence of it. However, hiding something does not make it go away.

 

[blase6]

“Discoverable” is a strange or odd concept. After one person discovers some idea, other people can convince themselves that they could have discovered it. However, if we want to investigate what is involved in discovering ideas, then we need to set up a situation where some community is isolated from everybody who has already acquired familiarity with the idea via transmission directly or indirectly from the person who actually discovered the idea.

Given the context provided by the first message of your thread, I consider “discoverable by reason alone” to be extremely strange. I consider it to be much more strange than “discoverable.” Let me explain why. First, we need to look at the context:

“Everything else, no matter how much evidence, cannot be founded on absolute logic but only on reasonable evidence which suggests that it is true.”

“I am devoted to finding how things are absolutely correct with no possibility of error.”

It sounds as though you are talking about using deductive reasoning to justify some conclusions. However, there are at least two problems with this. One problem is that to arrive at a conclusion, there needs to be at least one assumption. The other problem is that if we are talking about the kind of reasoning that allows one to discover trains of thought and pursue or investigate those trains of thought, then we are not talking about merely deductive reasoning.

It is possible that there is something incoherent about what you were thinking when you wrote the title of the thread. Of course, it would be possible to rewrite the title of the thread to hide the incoherence of it. However, hiding something does not make it go away.

For now, I live by the rule that for some knowledge to be authentically certain, the negation of that knowledge must be absolutely impossible. For example, “I think” is certain. “I do not think” is certainly impossible because I directly experience my thought now, making “I do not think” contradictory. So only if the negation of a statement is contradictory, then the statement is certainly true.

Of course, who can say for sure that even the idea of non-contradiction is accurate to reality? Of course we see that it is the case in what we as human beings experience, but that means almost nothing in the “big scheme”. We are just a bunch of strange creatures on a ball in space coming up with strange ideas. Who even knows what is real anymore.