According to Aristotle, rational justifications can be utilized in order to form a view of the world and its values. However, must every belief require observation and rationality? Yes, the Aristotelian thought is similar to the scientific method as stated by Sir Reciprocal, and it allows us to form conclusions based on solid evidence. But, there are unknown things on the Earth. We have yet to discover them; we are truly unaware if the scientific method is sufficient. Regardless, I still like Aristotle's thought. Furthermore, Friedrich Nietzche once stated that it is impossible to define nature in linear terms. However, can one not estimate its definition as one calculates the slope of a straight line tangent to a curved line in order to approximate the complete slope?
Well this is an interesting first post to see from you. Aristotle brings damn good points to the table, as do all great thinkers. However, as you point out, there are some flaws: hence, we do not know everything. At the same time, if the world is constantly changing and different concepts are coming to light and forming, isn't it impossible to be able to know everything? Once we learn the most of one thing, we'll only find more mysteries that hide in the information we know. I think with Nietzche's statement, he simply means the elements of nature and its functionality, i.e. life, the spirit, change in societal beliefs, and other things of that sort. So, it is entirely possible to define the physical aspects of the world around us with formulas, lines, etc., but what honestly makes a person what they are, and how existence flows cannot be defined by a simple calculation. I could be wrong though, I haven't heard too much about Nietzche. Dunno all his thoughts.
In response to the first, I do think that sometimes you do need to think outside of typical rationality to discover new truths. Albert Einstein apparently once said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." This, I think, is what he meant by that. If you approach things only by what you "know" or what is common knowledge, you'll only arrive at "rational" conclusions which may not account for all possibilities or outcomes. Imagination is the ability to take a mental leap that may even defy common sense. And it's a valuable asset. At the very least, imagination lets you think ahead and imagine future possibilities rather than immediate results. So in that way it can also be the best kind of common sense there is. As for your second quote, I simply agree. I think you're right about that.
Thank you for thy response. Nietzche stated that nature cannot be defined linearly, or in a definite manner. I was comparing it to the complexity of the slope/area of a curved line, as both can be approximated. But, I am currently attempting to create a formula for the definite slope/area, I have an idea.
"rational justifications can be utilized in order to form a view of the world and its values." According to many sociologists, the world we live in is socially constructed, so what is considered ''rational'' is constructed by us as well.
Yes, to be justified in a belief one must have reason and evidence. However, one of the great things about science is not only does it leave room for the Unknown, but also make predictions based on known evidence. Therefore it is reasonable to believe something to a certain degree of confidence if there is enough evidence to indicate such. Dead certainty is a rarity in science and few things are ever truly set in stone, but often things can be inferred. If they are later proven wrong, then good scientists will be happy to put up their hands and admit such, but were reasonable to believe what they did with the degree of confidence they did, in the face of enough evidence. There is also another quote I like from Aristotle which I think relates to me. He said "whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god." I love my solitude and am no wild beast so I like to think the other must be true :lol: Happy days
