Otherwise you have the equivalent of infinite monkey theorem where you just try to guess and when you think you got it right you get tangled even more to the point where you have hard time reverting to the beginning. What is the point if you don't analyze the very activity and its foundations constantly and never taken anything by heart? Why is meta-reasoning so rare when its the very key in any attempt to knowledge?
Why is meta-reasoning not the most important part?
Caleb Peterson
John Gutierrez
what about meta-meta-reasoning?
Sebastian Gonzalez
whenever I try meta reasoning this happen
>And they don't stop coming
>And they don't stop coming
>And they don't stop coming
>And they don't stop coming
>And they don't stop coming
i hate it when it happens
Aiden Price
>meta-meta-reasoning
As long as you're able to define it.
Daniel Ramirez
b8
Jeremiah Parker
So...
Camden Powell
Hmmmmmm.....
Julian Ramirez
When you're "meta^(n) reasoning" you can't escape using reason to analyze reason, which is nonsensical and pointless.
Isaiah Turner
I feel like Akagi said it best
Nolan Nelson
That is indeed important. Dostoyevsky already told us what happens when you rely only on reason to guide you, and that's why Nietzsche talks about Will as a path to greatness instead. Let's suppose you are arguing with someone about a topic you're pretty sure to be right. The person doesn't accept your arguments, for somehow he knows to be right as well. What good is reason here? The winner is the one who imposes its will the most, be it through fallacies or sheer violence. Otherwise if they continue into their never-ending argument, knowledge will be forever stuck, for reason alone is not enough to solve the situation. If one of them pushes its pov through violence, at least history can continue to develop itself in some way. Look at the West if you want another example: what is the point of appealing to reason with people who want to exterminate you? In 100 years Europe will be a Muslim continent and European knowledge will, at the very best, become antiques from a distant and uncivilized past.
Luis Bailey
LMAO, fucking nihilist loser.
Jayden Kelly
Why do you say I'm a nihilist?
Wyatt Russell
Not him but it’s obvious you read houellebecq and think it’s mindblowing
Noah Rodriguez
I've read Fight Club and liked a lot, does it count?
Carter Carter
Imagine being this retard, I knew this is a low IQ board(not like there is any intelligent one anyway). People seem to simply black out on when they see they actually have to think.
Anthony Cooper
>Imagine being this retard
Care to explain why?
Jeremiah Wood
See . Either you're going to keep going on in chains of meta-meta-garbage forever or you come to accept some original ground for your propositions. You need some axioms. This is faith.
Xavier Sanchez
Because you're an impulsive whore who thinks everything have to be decided right and now and didn't even understood the topic of the thread. FUck you
Matthew Thompson
>who thinks everything have to be decided right and now
My examples were extreme ones, but it doesn't disregard my argument.
>didn't even understood the topic of the thread
Op asked us to rationalize reason itself, and that's what I tried to do. Using reason to discredit reason.
Easton Allen
>but it doesn't disregard my argument.
It does you dumb retard. You're no different than this brainlet who just don't want to bother thinking and instead wants to get back in his cage.
>Using reason to discredit reason.
Everything you do is done with some kind of reason unless you're mentally ill which you might be. You didn't discredit reason, you're just trying to justify your weakness and being anti-intellectual retard. By that you might as well become anything else too since you can't argue it and don't need reason. You're ready to get influenced by whatever comes.
Liam Collins
>who just don't want to bother thinking
What would you say about the OP?
>Everything you do is done with some kind of reason
I never said otherwise
>you're just trying to justify your weakness
If you're talking about some lack of base to justify my beliefs, why don't you refute me without appealing to fallacies?
>By that you might as well become anything else too since you can't argue it and don't need reason.
Maybe I haven't expressed myself properly, but reason is an efficient tool when both parts are honest about it. And trying to fight barbarism with reason is to just lose. The sun is as important as the steel, and there are moments to use both.
>You're ready to get influenced by whatever comes.
That's the most reasonable thing you've said. I understand your criticism, it's a valid one. I have a set of values tho, and I'd put them over tyranny if necessary.
Alexander Bell
>What would you say about the OP?
I made this thread to discuss reasoning, not some lowbrow writers.
> why don't you refute me without appealing to fallacies?
I have not used any fallacies. You're the one who thinks might is right. And by any means I absolutely hate all the non-white subhumans, though you need to completely nullify them by reason. Otherwise they become like cockroaches and sooner or later they come again no matter how much you exterminate them. If you deny their existence through reason you deny their physical existence. Its why they try to guiltrip us so hard.
>but reason is an efficient tool when both parts are honest about it
Truth doesn't need anyone to agree with it. If you completely nullify someone through actual reasoning its over for them.
Brody Young
>you need to completely nullify them by reason
Say this after getting your skull crashed by someone who doesn't care about your culture.
>If you deny their existence through reason you deny their physical existence.
If you're saying that first you need to prove through reason that shitskins can't invade your country so people can do something about it, I agree. Otherwise I don't actually understood what you mean by this.
>If you completely nullify someone through actual reasoning its over for them.
Say that after getting stabbed by someone who lost an argument
Ayden Scott
Like I said, you need to first reason the fact that their existence is absolutely pointless.
>Otherwise I don't actually understood what you mean by this.
That when you completely, not just through cheap emotions prove to your people that they are not just harmful but deadly.
>Say that after getting stabbed by someone who lost an argument
You don't need their approval, they are the lesser and weaker, you just need as a whole to have the absolute reason for their removal/deportation and or collonisation.
Bentley Howard
Meta-reasoning is reasoning about the way one reasons. Meta-meta-reasoning is reasoning about the way one meta-reasons, which itself is an act of reasoning. They’re essentially the same thing.
To be honest, I can’t think of a practical example of meta-meta-reasoning, unless you are looking for the “history” of a chain of thought. Otherwise, the patterns identified would be the same. Anything you discover in the act of meta-reasoning about the way you would reason would also apply to the way you would meta-reason too. So it would be “bounded” by one stage of meta in the exploration of the domain of reason.
Andrew Bailey
based kjerka guard