Does rationality truly exist?
This debate is in regard to the concept of rationality existing or not.
On the matter of God: If our life is planned by the almighty, why would rationality exist?
Are we made to believe that we can rationalize, but cannot actually perform an act of rational thought?
Let's see what others have to say.
Happy Debating!
Yes, Absolutely
Side Score: 4
|
 |
No, Definantly Not
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
i would like to argue that it does exist. It exists in the minds of man. The most intelligent species on the planet. In terms of God though it depends on your particular beliefs. If you happen to prescribe to Judaism, Christianity or Islam you have to give up your entitlement to rationality and freedom of choice as your path is already predetermined by an omniscient, omnipotent being that is all good. It is the central dogma of these particular faiths that cannot be denied. To do so would put you outside these belief systems and possibly into a new schism. God chooses for you and it is only anthropocentric to believe otherwise. On the other hand you may not prescribe to these schools of thought and may be a follower of Deism, a reason based faith system whereby you believe the universe was intelligently designed by some form of superior power then abandoned to live out its existence under the laws of said Universe. In this case rationality can be plausibly said to exist as there is no particular teaching to state the position of the deity on how things play out, leaving the faithful to create freely. Side: Yes, absolutely
|
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
I really don`t think the argument is between whether or not emotions are involved in our decision-making. Here is what I think: The term “rationality” implies that things –words, concepts, texts, terms etc. – have intrinsic meanings. That is, it is “already there and always there,” that the meaning pre-exists its realization. The meaning is directly perceivable by people, it is already there, and people just identify it. For there to be 'intrinsic meaning' there has to be an order or structure which governs and regulates the production of meaning. The “thing” is therefore a “copy” of that structure which grounds the coherence of the “thing.” Such and understanding of meaning presupposes a metaphysical notion of harmony and unity; a thing is only a thing, i.e. it has meaning as an entity, and only insofar as it is a whole. This notion negates the reality of the material conditions of production or reception; the conceptual distances between the historical discourse / ideology / cultural codes / genre-traditions of the past and the historical discourse / ideology / cultural codes / genre-traditions of the present, which opens up new meanings which the “thing” could not have, in a sense, had before. It makes the meaning itself unitary, it makes criticism commentary, a pointing out of the essential truth which is embodied not in but through the “thing.” Side: No, Definantly Not
|
