The Two Foundational Problems In Philosophy

[TortoiseDream]

The statement that these are "foundational problems" is my own characterization. These are two things that have stumped me for years now. I have tried to come up with an understanding of the world from first principles, but these two things always prevent me from doing so in a satisfactory way. I'd be interested in any thoughts on them. In particular if you want me to add more details to any particular point, just let me know - this treatment is purposely succinct for economical reasons.

1.) From the very start I must call our attention to the fact that, as a rational being, any attempt to understand my world is necessarily based on the faulty or refined use of my sense of reason. This proposition, which is of course the start of such an attempt, applies to itself, for I am implicitly assuming basic things about consistency and truth. The use of reason and the so-named attempt, therefore, are the same thing. This realization will come to undermine all of the subsequent propositions to follow.

Since I are obligated to use reason in any philosophical investigation, the question naturally arises: is reason the proper way to obtain knowledge about the world? This question cannot be answered in a logically consistent, conclusive way. To see this, I examine the two cases one at a time:

Case 1: Suppose that one claims to have provided an argument that proves reason is not the proper way to obtain knowledge. This apparent realization, however, is the result of the use of reason in the first place, and is self-defeating. In particular, the conclusion challenges the integrity of the method which was used to obtain it.

Case 2: Suppose that one claims to have provided an argument that proves reason is the proper way to obtain knowledge. Then this conclusion is meaningless because it was taken as a hypothesis to begin with.

Recalling the principle of excluded middle, I am therefore left uncertain about the validity of reason as the tool to obtain knowledge. However, as I foreshadowed above, this analysis is entirely the product and exercise of reason in the first place, and adds a further (perhaps more baffling) level of uncertainty to the subject.

2.) Philosophy is presumably the study of knowledge, knowledge which ideally will enable me to understand the nature of the world (ontology), and how to live in this world (ethics). If that is the case, then the most natural question to ask is: what is knowledge, and how does one obtain knowledge? Let me assume, for intuitive reasons, that the answer to this question is an example of knowledge. Then one is inevitably caught in a vicious circle, because this question must be answered before one can attempt to try answering it in the first place. It's similar to the difficulty one would have searching for a flashlight in a pitch black room. This is the centerpiece of the dilemma for the philosopher, in my opinion. How does one overcome this circle? The other possibility we neglected is even more confusing, namely if we assume that the answer to the question is not an example of knowledge.

 

[Ignoramus]

• [*]1.) From the very start I must call our attention to the fact that, as a rational being, any attempt to understand my world is necessarily based on the faulty or refined use of my sense of reason. This proposition, which is of course the start of such an attempt, applies to itself, for I am implicitly assuming basic things about consistency and truth. The use of reason and the so-named attempt, therefore, are the same thing. This realization will come to undermine all of the subsequent propositions to follow.

Since I are obligated to use reason in any philosophical investigation, the question naturally arises: is reason the proper way to obtain knowledge about the world? This question cannot be answered in a logically consistent, conclusive way. To see this, I examine the two cases one at a time:

Case 1: Suppose that one claims to have provided an argument that proves reason is not the proper way to obtain knowledge. This apparent realization, however, is the result of the use of reason in the first place, and is self-defeating. In particular, the conclusion challenges the integrity of the method which was used to obtain it.

If you confine yourself to a linear system, then you are restricted to linear terms. If you create a game, you have to play by the rules of the game when playing. The acquisition of knowledge is largely an intuitive process. Reason and logic are used to verify, not to acquire. Knowledge existed before reason. Words are but pointers to meaning, the meaning existed prior to the pointers. Yes, for those who think in the linear mode and use the verbal mode of thought, words help shape meaning. It is claimed that Einstein used the non-verbal mode exclusively. However, that is contradicted to a degree by the fact that he described his thoughts verbally. As long as we are solitary beings, we can avoid the verbal, but when we enter the normal world of Human sociability, we must return to the verbal mode.
However, that which is communicated is only that which can be communicated. And even that which can be communicated exceeds the capability of the verbal mode. The majority of Human understanding is nonverbal, and thus outside the limits of reason and logic.
Interestingly enough, your signature is from the Tao teh Ching, so surely you should be aware of this.

 

[TortoiseDream]

If you confine yourself to a linear system, then you are restricted to linear terms. If you create a game, you have to play by the rules of the game when playing. The acquisition of knowledge is largely an intuitive process. Reason and logic are used to verify, not to acquire. Knowledge existed before reason. Words are but pointers to meaning, the meaning existed prior to the pointers. Yes, for those who think in the linear mode and use the verbal mode of thought, words help shape meaning. It is claimed that Einstein used the non-verbal mode exclusively. However, that is contradicted to a degree by the fact that he described his thoughts verbally. As long as we are solitary beings, we can avoid the verbal, but when we enter the normal world of Human sociability, we must return to the verbal mode.
However, that which is communicated is only that which can be communicated. And even that which can be communicated exceeds the capability of the verbal mode. The majority of Human understanding is nonverbal, and thus outside the limits of reason and logic.
Interestingly enough, your signature is from the Tao teh Ching, so surely you should be aware of this.

This response used to give me comfort, but it no longer does. It is, essentially, a rational, logical analysis nonetheless, which is the subject of my post. The problem is that these two things cannot be attacked without reason in the first place, like I noted in the beginning. In that sense, it's almost as if there is no null hypothesis, which is problematic. I've been trying to find a way out of it, but I cannot. Thus philosophy has been, for me, a speculative game for the last few years.

 

[Ignoramus]

This response used to give me comfort, but it no longer does. It is, essentially, a rational, logical analysis nonetheless, which is the subject of my post. The problem is that these two things cannot be attacked without reason in the first place, like I noted in the beginning. In that sense, it's almost as if there is no null hypothesis, which is problematic. I've been trying to find a way out of it, but I cannot. Thus philosophy has been, for me, a speculative game for the last few years.

And if I had posted the first chapter of the Tao Teh Ching, the final ring of Miyamoto Musashi?s "Book of Five Rings", or the Kena Upanishad, would your response have been the same?
If one has no need of a sword, why bemoan its lack?

 

[TortoiseDream]

And if I had posted the first chapter of the Tao Teh Ching, the final ring of Miyamoto Musashi?s "Book of Five Rings", or the Kena Upanishad, would your response have been the same?
If one has no need of a sword, why bemoan its lack?

Yes it would have. I'm very fond of the Tao Te Ching for poetic reasons.

 

[Ignoramus]

Yes it would have. I'm very fond of the Tao Te Ching for poetic reasons.

I?m impressed. Even among Chinese, those who can read Classical Chinese are rare. For us who depend on translations, poetry is the product of the translator. Amongst the three versions that I have of the Tao Teh Ching, Tao Teh King, Tao Te Ching, Te-Tao Ching, or Lao-tzu, the one most recommended to me by Chinese scholars and martial artists is in prose. Namely the Archie Bahm translation. The recommendations were based on clarity of meaning, since that was what I was interested in.
However, from the above, I would gather that your response to a posting of chapter one of the Tao Teh Ching would have been

It is, essentially, a rational, logical analysis nonetheless, which is the subject of my post.

Apparently your definitions of rational and logical are different than mine.
Incidentally, I consider myself a classical Taoist.

 

[TortoiseDream]

It might be an issue of semantics, but at the end of the day even the Tao Te Ching appeals to notions of consistency and truth. It is the product of a man's rational faculties, not just a crazy person's ramblings.

Also, just briefly (and I don't mean this comment menacingly), I don't believe a true Taoist would ever claim to be one. That's the entire point of the philosophy, non-action.

 

[Ignoramus]

It might be an issue of semantics, but at the end of the day even the Tao Te Ching appeals to notions of consistency and truth. It is the product of a man's rational faculties, not just a crazy person's ramblings.

Also, just briefly (and I don't mean this comment menacingly), I don't believe a true Taoist would ever claim to be one. That's the entire point of the philosophy, non-action.

A life time?s search has ended. Now I have the entire point of philosophical Taoism. Things must be simpler when you can read classical Chinese.
More enlightenment, it seems that ultimate ontology is reduced to a dichotomy between the rational faculties and a crazy person?s ramblings. To bad Emanuel Kant didn?t have you around to explain things to him. By the way, not to worry, I don?t feel menaced.

 

[RoccoR]

TortoiseDream, et al,

I see the discussion in four (4) points:

• Q1: Is reason the proper way to obtain knowledge about the world?
  
• Q2: what is knowledge, and how does one obtain knowledge?
  
• Q3: How does one overcome this circle?
  
• H1: The problem is that these two things cannot be attacked without reason in the first place, like I noted in the beginning.

I would like to suggest the following claims for consideration (CFC), in a somewhat altered order.

• CFC: We learn by experience and exposure.
• CFC: Knowledge is the memory of the perception that experience and exposure imprints.
• CFC: Cognitive abilities are mental skills necessary for memory and perception.
• CFC: Argumentation is a method of reason. An argument consists of a premise (a proposition), or set of premises, manipulating knowledge fragments in sound and valid arrangements by means of cognitive skills, leading to a conclusion (new knowledge).
• CFC: Perception and Cognitive skills are human qualities, subject to fallibility.
• CFC: Knowledge is not always true (fallible).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Ignoramus]

TortoiseDream, et al,
I see the discussion in four (4) points:
 Q1: Is reason the proper way to obtain knowledge about the world?
 Q2: what is knowledge, and how does one obtain knowledge?

I believe that you are confusing the tool and the tasks. This is a hypotheses which I will seek to verify using reason. However, reason had no part in arriving at the hypothesis. I would not attempt to define knowledge. I will let the dictionary do it for me. Well, it’s really not a lot of help. Too bad. However if we reflect on the definitions and the examples, a concept forms. We could try to put in words, but then, we would be going backwards.
Now, to define reason, we return to the dictionary.
Well we can, but unfortunately the accumulated results will take my post beyond the word limits for a post. So I will use definitions a only.
I realize that this may not be among the definitions that you would use.
However if you look at the concept that forms for knowledge, and the given definitions for reason, it should be reasonably clear that according to the dictionary definition of knowledge, knowledge is not necessarily the result of reason. For example, knowledge of the arts include much that cannot be expressed in the verbal mode. Michelangelo's statement that the sculpture was already in the marble, and only required the excess be removed might be inspirational to the aspiring sculpturer, but hardly descriptive of the process.
Skill acquired through experience is usually considered knowledge. For example, the immense amounts of knowledge required to play competitive basketball at the professional level. At the present, even if we could obtain and reduce this knowledge to a verbal format, it would probably be beyond our means of storage.
The average Human, probably any Human, has far more knowledge in the non-verbal format than in the verbal format. If one attempts to reduce some of this knowledge to a computer format, then one has to face the incredible complexity of the knowledge in the verbal format. At the moment, much, if not most, is beyond the limits of the computer programmer.
It should be clear, unless one wishes to adhere to an anomalous definition of knowledge, that knowledge is often derived without benefit of verbal processes.
Now if we look at the definitions of reason which we have, it would seem that reason is a tool for testing the validity of verbal knowledge. It is not involved in the acquisition of knowledge but the processing of it.
First, the inspiration or the epiphany, then the explanation.
There are two separate tasks, one the acquiring of knowlege, and two, the verification of knowledge and its reduction to a communicable form . Reason is the tool for the latter task.
Yes, you can use a screwdriver for a hammer, but it’s not the best of tools for that purpose.

As for the rest of your post, I believe I have run out of space.
Knowledge :
From the Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, CD Version 3.0

Main Entry:2knowledge
Pronunciation:*
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Middle English knawlage, knowlage, knawlege, knowlege, from knawlechen, knowlechen, v.
1 obsolete a : ACKNOWLEDGMENT b : COGNIZANCE
2 : the fact or condition of knowing a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with a considerable degree of familiarity gained through experience of or contact or association with the individual or thing so known *a thorough knowledge of life and its problems* *has a fair knowledge of the people of that country* *a remarkable knowledge of human nature* (2) : acquaintance with or theoretical or practical understanding of some branch of science, art, learning, or other area involving study, research, or practice and the acquisition of skills *knowledge of advanced mathematics* *has little knowledge of the techniques of drawing and painting* *a knowledge of foreign languages* b (1) : the fact or condition of being cognizant, conscious, or aware of something *was elated by knowledge of their success* *the knowledge that it was really important* *his knowledge of what she had had to endure* (2) : the particular existent range of one's information or acquaintance with facts : the scope of one's awareness : extent of one's understanding *said that to the best of his knowledge the matter had not yet been attended to* c : the fact or condition of apprehending truth, fact, or reality immediately with the mind or senses : PERCEPTION, COGNITION *intellective knowledge* *the nature of knowledge* : COMPREHENSION, UNDERSTANDING *intuitive knowledge* *proceeding from the lower to the higher degrees of knowledge* d : the fact or condition of possessing within mental grasp through instruction, study, research, or experience one or more truths, facts, principles, or other objects of perception : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned or erudite *a man of great knowledge* *always seeking after more and more knowledge*
3 archaic : CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
4 a : the sum total of what is known : the whole body of truth, fact, information, principles, or other objects of cognition acquired by mankind *adding to the vast store of knowledge* *all branches of knowledge* b archaic : a branch of learning : ART, SCIENCE
synonyms KNOWLEDGE, SCIENCE, LEARNING, ERUDITION, SCHOLARSHIP, INFORMATION, and LORE agree in signifying what is or can be known. KNOWLEDGE applies to any body of known facts or to any body of ideas inferred from such facts or accepted as truths on good grounds *a knowledge of languages* *a knowledge of the habits of snakes* *a knowledge of modern chemistry* *to benefit by the accumulated knowledge of centuries* SCIENCE still sometimes interchanges with KNOWLEDGE but commonly applies to a body of systematized knowledge comprising facts carefully gathered and general truths carefully inferred from them, often underlying a practice, usually connoting exactness, and often denoting knowledge of unquestionable certainty *must bear in mind that geographic discovery also is science, and it was a scientific theory that impelled the venture of Columbus— I.M.Price* *the defense of nations had become a science and a calling— T.B.Macaulay* *the science of administration— A.S.Link* *the art of feeding preceded the science of nutrition by many centuries— F.B.Hadley* *the diagnosis of disease is no longer primarily guesswork but rather a science* LEARNING applies to knowledge gained by study, often long and careful and sometimes connoting comprehensiveness and profundity *to expose children to as much learning as possible* *a full, rich, human book, packed with information lightly dispensed and fortified with learning easily worn— Honor Tracy* *a man of great and profound learning but little common sense* ERUDITION usually stresses wide, profound, or recondite learning, sometimes suggesting pedantry *often flabbergast their elders with their erudition — a scholarly but lively sense of words, a sound background in history and economics, the ability to translate or even to speak two or three foreign languages— Stanley Walker* *all the encyclopedic erudition of the middle ages— J.L.Lowes* *balancing an immense load of erudition upon a precarious foundation of fact— Times Literary Supplement* SCHOLARSHIP implies the learning, careful mastery of detail, especially of a given field, and the critical acumen characteristic of a good scholar *the immense and rapidly expanding scholarship not only in psychology but in history, sociology, and anthropology as well, which illuminates the study of the family— Lynn White* *unusually equipped in both scientific and classical scholarship in addition to his command of his own field, a brilliant and powerful lecturer— E.S.Bates* *his learning and general scholarship were universally recognized, and in his special sphere of law he had no peer in this country— T.D.Bacon* INFORMATION generally applies to knowledge, commonly accepted as true, of a factual kind usually gathered from others or from books *this book, packed with information of the life and movements of big game— Times Literary Supplement* *to seek information about a man from friends and credit records* *a book of information about early river boats* LORE suggests special, often arcane, knowledge, usually of a traditional, anecdotal character and of a particular subject *fairy lore* *one of the most bizarre occurrences in railroad lore— Bennett Cerf* *bird lore* *taught the lore of medicinal herbs— American Guide Series: Louisiana*

Reason:
From the Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, CD Version 3.0
Partial quote:

1 a : an expression or statement offered as an explanation of a belief or assertion or as a justification of an act or procedure *gave reasons that were quite satisfactory* b : a consideration, motive, or judgment inducing or confirming a belief, influencing the will, or leading to an action or course of action : a rational ground or motive *will mention a reason for this situation* *the reason that this is so should now be clear* *a good reason to act as you do* *does not know the reason why* c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : a general principle, law, or warranted presumption that supports a conclusion, explains a fact, or validates a course of conduct *brilliantly outlined the reasons that supported his client's action* d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE *the reason for the tides lies in the gravitational pull of the moon and the sun* e : a sane or sound view or consideration *that's a reason that you should keep in mind*1

 

[RoccoR]

Ignoramus, et al,

This is an interesting question. It is a double-edged sword because the very thing that we are trying to study, is the very thing with which we are using to study it. (Trying to look at a set of binoculars, with the same set of binoculars.)

I believe that you are confusing the tool and the tasks. This is a hypotheses which I will seek to verify using reason.

(COMMENT)

Let me reverify the questions:

• Q1: Is reason the proper way to obtain knowledge about the world?
• Q2: what is knowledge, and how does one obtain knowledge?

However, reason had no part in arriving at the hypothesis. I would not attempt to define knowledge. I will let the dictionary do it for me. Well, it’s really not a lot of help. Too bad. However if we reflect on the definitions and the examples, a concept forms. We could try to put in words, but then, we would be going backwards.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree… it is sometimes difficult to use a lay dictionary when studying more advanced concepts.

However if you look at the concept that forms for knowledge, and the given definitions for reason, it should be reasonably clear that according to the dictionary definition of knowledge, knowledge is not necessarily the result of reason.

(COMMENT)

Agreed: Reason cannot be the “only” way in which “knowledge” is acquired. Sensory perceptions do make a contribution. Clearly, the color “red” cannot be fully appreciated by a blind person who has never seen the spectrum.

… If one attempts to reduce some of this knowledge to a computer format, then one has to face the incredible complexity of the knowledge in the verbal format. At the moment, much, if not most, is beyond the limits of the computer programmer.

A N D

… It should be clear, unless one wishes to adhere to an anomalous definition of knowledge, that knowledge is often derived without benefit of verbal processes.​

​

(COMMENT)

“Verbal Format” --- in this case --- (audible communication) --- is simply a means in a dependent information exchange. What is important is the recognition of the exchange (interrogation & reply). In an exchange, the “reply” can be in a separate dependent form; it is not (necessarily) tied to the initial means of communication covering the exchange. So we are in agreement (I think).

What “knowledge” is --- is hotly contested. I’m not sure that (scientifically) it has a hard definition. But it has been recognized as one of the high-order functional components in the cognitive process; the other two of the generally accepted components are "conceptualization" and "perception."

Now if we look at the definitions of reason which we have, it would seem that reason is a tool for testing the validity of verbal knowledge.
It is not involved in the acquisition of knowledge but the processing of it.

(ALTERNATIVE)

While, surely, “reasoning” can be used as a “tool,” I submit that it is much more, and implies much more.

“It is a process of creating relationships between ideas in such a way that belief in one is intended to follow as a consequence of belief in another.”

I submit that in making these relationships, the outcome is new “knowledge.”

First, the inspiration or the epiphany, then the explanation.

(COMMENT)

“Inspiration & Epiphenomenalism” are complicated. Even what they represent are somewhat curious. As near as we can tell, they represent a kind of subconscious reasoning that results in a conscious assertion unsupported by a memorable process of development.

Epiphenomenalism is a view that the mind does not have physical effects but merely ***floats above*** the physical processes of the brain.

This isn’t helpful, except to exemplify just how difficult it is to scientifically quantify the concept. It is believe by many that there must be (at some level) a reasoning process.

There are two separate tasks, one the acquiring of knowlege, and two, the verification of knowledge and its reduction to a communicable form . Reason is the tool for the latter task.
Yes, you can use a screwdriver for a hammer, but it’s not the best of tools for that purpose.

(ALTERNATIVE)

This might be a false assumption. That is, they may not be two (2) “two separate tasks.” We can demonstrate that through “reasoning,” new knowledge can be derived (establishing relationships and its consequence).

In the acquisition of new knowledge imparted to us, we are "cognitively" required to exercise two (2) kinds of judgments (through reasoning). We adjudicate the information presented and “believe or not believe.” Then we are positioned to make a judgment on the ideas implied by the accepted (or denial) of the information.

There is no evidence (I am aware of) to support the concept that reasoning is serially processed, as opposed to parallel processed; although it is not ruled-out.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[obtuseobserver]

I would like to suggest....

that you write like a real human instead of a drone and quit with that tedious respectfully submitted bullshit.... please

that post...^ the one preceding this one... one of the most annoying things I never considered reading in my life

 

[RoccoR]

obtuseobserver,

Yes, I apologize for my format and approach.

that you write like a real human instead of a drone and quit with that tedious respectfully submitted bullshit.... please

that post...^ the one preceding this one... one of the most annoying things I never considered reading in my life

(COMMENT)

You are correct, I am a real person.

• 2. Ethical conduct-think how you would speak to that person if you were standing in front of them and not behind a computer.
• 5. Even though you are behind a computer-your words identify who you are too them. Enough said.

I generally adhere to the etiquette, even though I was forewarned that is was not customary for some bloggers. So, while my format may be unconventional, it is representative of who I am, face-to-face; and not just behind the screen.

I don't expect you to understand, and I don't expect you to take offense. If it (my courtesy) is too "tedious," please feel free to pass them bye. And I will avoid any further exchange with you.

I am who I am. Again, I offer my apologies but really don't intend to change.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ad hominem and tu quoque

Definitions: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem ("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually "You shouldn't believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument.

 

[obtuseobserver]

obtuseobserver,

Yes, I apologize for my format and approach.
(COMMENT)

You are correct, I am a real person.

I am not convinced

I generally adhere to the etiquette, even though I was forewarned that is was not customary for some bloggers. So, while my format may be unconventional, it is representative of who I am, face-to-face; and not just behind the screen.

And my reaction was a fair example of how I perceive that unconventional format and is a fair representation of who I am face to face.

I write conversationally not mnechanically. The latter annoys the hell out of me.

I don't expect you to understand, and I don't expect you to take offense. If it (my courtesy) is too "tedious," please feel free to pass them bye. And I will avoid any further exchange with you.

I am who I am. Again, I offer my apologies but really don't intend to change.

Most Respectfully,
R

has nothing to do with "understand"

I don't want your aplogies either. I have no issue with you. Frankly, until shown other I presume you to be a decent and intelligent person... well... maybe a person. Its that damn post structure. Yes, I'm easily annoyed but the fact is that the opportunity for any meaningful dialogue will be lost because we're both damn stubborn.

Lol, I am familiar with ad hominem. I did not employ it. I addressed my comments specifcally to the format of your posts... not you. I was not concerned about your argument because the format prevented me from getting there.

 

[Ignoramus]

Ignoramus, et al,

This is an interesting question. It is a double-edged sword because the very thing that we are trying to study, is the very thing with which we are using to study it. (Trying to look at a set of binoculars, with the same set of binoculars.)
(COMMENT)



Let me reverify the questions:

• Q1: Is reason the proper way to obtain knowledge about the world?
• Q2: what is knowledge, and how does one obtain knowledge?

(COMMENT)
Yes, I agree… it is sometimes difficult to use a lay dictionary when studying more advanced concepts.

​

Practice may not make perfect, but it helps. Of course, one should understand the rudiments of lexicography first. Dictionaries deal with words. Words are not concepts, but pointers to meaning. As Alfred Korzybski repeated ad infinitum, "The name is not the thing named."
Dictionaries don’t create words, they assign meaning derived from usage. I wasn’t pointing out the uselessness of dictionaries in this case, merely that the dictionary alone doesn’t automatically give a definition. There are numerous definitions for most words, especially words which point to complex meaning. The same word can through usage point to many different meanings, sometimes quite unrelated meanings. You have to pick the definition that seems to fit the context, and hope that that is what the one who chose the word meant. Ultimately the final authority on which definition applies is the one who used the word in the first place. Of course, if he used a none standard meaning, then he is stuck with it unless he defined his term. If he defined his term with a non standard definition, then the definition holds for his argument and his usage, but he cannot apply his definition to the usage of another.
By the way, the dictionary in question is the CD version of the Merriam-Webster’s Third International Unabridged, which is usually considered the highest American standard for American English. I have the print version weighing down my book shelf, but the CD Version seems identical to me and is far easier to use with a computer.
I guess you could call it a lay dictionary, but I assumed that is what the folks on the forum are, laymen, at least in the context of the forum. That is certainly my role.

(COMMENT)
Agreed: Reason cannot be the "only" way in which "knowledge" is acquired. Sensory perceptions do make a contribution. Clearly, the color "red" cannot be fully appreciated by a blind person who has never seen the spectrum.
(COMMENT)
"Verbal Format" --- in this case --- (audible communication) --- is simply a means in a dependent information exchange. What is important is the recognition of the exchange (interrogation & reply). In an exchange, the "reply" can be in a separate dependent form; it is not (necessarily) tied to the initial means of communication covering the exchange. So we are in agreement (I think).

Not really but let it ride.

What "knowledge" is --- is hotly contested. I’m not sure that (scientifically) it has a hard definition. But it has been recognized as one of the high-order functional components in the cognitive process; the other two of the generally accepted components are "conceptualization" and "perception."

​

Knowledge is a word. What it points to is another matter. It depends on who is using the word. Cognitive is another word, there seems to be a bit of confusion as to what it points to.

(ALTERNATIVE)
While, surely, "reasoning" can be used as a "tool," I submit that it is much more, and implies much more.
I submit that in making these relationships, the outcome is new "knowledge."

​

Reasoning is a word, I used the word to point to a concept. You want to point it to another concept. Fine, but let’s be a bit more specific. At the moment, I haven’t a clue as to your concept. What relationships are you referring to?

(COMMENT)
"Inspiration & Epiphenomenalism" are complicated. Even what they represent are somewhat curious. As near as we can tell, they represent a kind of subconscious reasoning that results in a conscious assertion unsupported by a memorable process of development.

This isn’t helpful, except to exemplify just how difficult it is to scientifically quantify the concept. It is believe by many that there must be (at some level) a reasoning process.
​

Damn complicated. Epiphenomenalism is a word, but if you are assuming a relationship between epiphany and epiphenomenalism, I suggest you look up the words. Your statement makes no sense to me, and I know what epiphenomenalism is supposed to mean. It actually is a pretty simple word with only one definition. The concept that it points to is quite complex, but meaningless in the context of your statement.

(ALTERNATIVE)
This might be a false assumption. That is, they may not be two (2) "two separate tasks." We can demonstrate that through "reasoning," new knowledge can be derived (establishing relationships and its consequence).
In the acquisition of new knowledge imparted to us, we are "cognitively" required to exercise two (2) kinds of judgments (through reasoning). We adjudicate the information presented and "believe or not believe." Then we are positioned to make a judgment on the ideas implied by the accepted (or denial) of the information.
There is no evidence (I am aware of) to support the concept that reasoning is serially processed, as opposed to parallel processed; although it is not ruled-out.
Most Respectfully,
R

Statement of opinion at variance with every book on psychology and consciousness that I have. Again, you are using a definition of reasoning which is unique, and while you are entitled to do that, I am unaware of the definition because you have not given the definition. I will give you choices from the dictionary. Feel free to pick one. If not, please give me your definition. However, if you can’t give me a definition, then at least an outline of the concept. I accept undefined terms.
Of course just because you pick a definition from the dictionary doesn’t mean that I won’t criticize it. After all, dictionary definitions are derived from usage. There are a lot of dummies out there using words. However, there are also some clever chaps out there as well. The dictionary uses all sources.
{}
Well so much for that idea. To give you an idea of the number and complexity of the definitions, just posting the definition for reason from the MWUD gave me a 50 % overrun on the word limit.
You could use the online version of the M-W International or the Oxford Dictionary to give you some definitions. If you don’t get a page full, you have the wrong dictionary.
{}
Incidentally, if you are attempting to criticize reason as the arbitrator of the nature of final reality, I have no problem with that. It is your arguments that I find fault with.
If you want to see how the argument is made, you might refer to Emanuel Kant’s, "Critique of Pure Reason". As far as I know, no one has successfully rebutted it. I certainly wouldn’t attempt it. I might not agree with all of it, but as far as rebutting it, beyond my means.​

 

[Typist]

How about this?

Reason and knowledge are surely one way to obtain knowledge about the world. Understandings that emerge from that process will necessarily be restricted by the properties of the substance they are made of, thought.

Thought is inherently abstract/symbolic and divisive. (By divisive I mean, "to divide", not argumentative, controversial etc.)

Reason, knowledge and thought can only make abstract statements ABOUT reality, from a distance.

Reason, knowledge and thought are essentially dead fragmentary symbols, attempting to represent the living whole of reality.

As example, while a photograph is a quite useful tool, it can never accurately represent the full reality of what it depicts.

This is a fundamental problem of philosophy I see.

1) Philosophy will always be limited by the properties of thought, the medium it is made of. This is a major source of distortion, because thought is abstract and divisive, while what we are observing is real and whole.

2) Philosophers seem to be generally uninterested in the medium of thought, distracted as they are by the content of thought.

 

[Iolo]

I think the basic problem (somewhat connected to the above argument about formality) is that we cannot think to more than a very limited degree outside language and that language shapes our thought (the language 'speaks us', as they say). The languages we use - other than, perhaps, mathematics - were developed a very long time ago by proto-humans with a very limited knowledge of the world. Most 'philosophy' is essentially about language, and it is very difficult to think clearly about that. It is based, for instance, on the constant repetition of simple metaphors to simplify experience, and includes 'common-sense' but extremely dubious concepts like 'I'. For my money the combination of hegemony and metaphor will do for this species fairly soon unless we develop a new way of shaping thought.