Quote:
|
Quote by: Starboy You're getting better but not quite there yet. But I think I understand what you are trying to say. Reason in and of itself is insufficient to behold the "truth" (reality). I agree. However it brings up the age old problem. What is sufficient? What criterion will we use? You will find that over the millenia mankind has tried different criteria. Most of them failures and many just out and out dishonest. But it turns out that one can take a pragmatic approach to the problem.
Starboy |
I wasn't trying to equate reason with truth. I was merely suggesting that the inferred superiority of some works does not exist because one CANNOT take a purely pragmatic approach to a problem. Everyone approaches a problem with certain ideas and notions. Only the completely ignorant and uneducated could do so, and most would argue such would be unqualified to approach our hypothetical problem in the first place. Granted, some forms of bias are more obvious and more extreme than others, but I am just again stating that the pure, perfect reason and pragmatism cannot and will not exist, and thus should not be used as an argument for the superiority of certain works. That in itself is not a very pragmatic approach.