I see reason as only being possible if you take certain things as being inherently true, in other words if you treat certain statements as axiomatic truth.
My reason to exist is that existence, feeling, is valuable in of itself, and I know I exist because I can think of my own existence. This is not a position I reasoned myself into, but I don’t think that fact forfeits my rationality.
If I am understanding your meaning you recognize the inherent flaw is that you believe in inherent truth? Or that your rationalization for being is inherently true if it werent you wouldnt be?
The question is of my reason for being, which is based on the flaw of belief in an inherent truth other than the fact that I exist is inarguable, since my ability to doubt of my own perspective proves I can think, and thus that I exist.
In other words, I believe certain base assumptions are needed for reason, whether you acknowledge them or not, and only one, “I exist” can be proven as 100% true through reason.
The flaw inherent to axioms of any kind, I guess.
I see reason as only being possible if you take certain things as being inherently true, in other words if you treat certain statements as axiomatic truth.
My reason to exist is that existence, feeling, is valuable in of itself, and I know I exist because I can think of my own existence. This is not a position I reasoned myself into, but I don’t think that fact forfeits my rationality.
If I am understanding your meaning you recognize the inherent flaw is that you believe in inherent truth? Or that your rationalization for being is inherently true if it werent you wouldnt be?
The question is of my reason for being, which is based on the flaw of belief in an inherent truth other than the fact that I exist is inarguable, since my ability to doubt of my own perspective proves I can think, and thus that I exist.
In other words, I believe certain base assumptions are needed for reason, whether you acknowledge them or not, and only one, “I exist” can be proven as 100% true through reason.