Reasons are a human invention to help make sense of the world. If you want to base everything on logical grounds you will run into two things mainly:
Limits of knowledge. Knowledge is always incomplete, as more of it opens up more questions. There are things you intuitively know are good, but can’t prove why they are.
Systemic limits of logical reasoning. A sufficiently powerful and consistent formal system (such as formal logic) is incomplete, it cannot prove its own correctness. (Gödel’s incompleteness theorems)
Can you give a reason though? I guess a child haven’t asked you an endless chain of whys yet. By the end of which you can’t say ‘why’ just that ‘that’s how it is’, you’ve reached the limit of knowledge.
Reasons are a human invention to help make sense of the world. If you want to base everything on logical grounds you will run into two things mainly:
Limits of knowledge. Knowledge is always incomplete, as more of it opens up more questions. There are things you intuitively know are good, but can’t prove why they are.
Systemic limits of logical reasoning. A sufficiently powerful and consistent formal system (such as formal logic) is incomplete, it cannot prove its own correctness. (Gödel’s incompleteness theorems)
Yeah, but it is better to give a valid reason, as opposed to “because”, right?
Can you give a reason though? I guess a child haven’t asked you an endless chain of whys yet. By the end of which you can’t say ‘why’ just that ‘that’s how it is’, you’ve reached the limit of knowledge.
Of course when available knowledge is preferable.
Epistemologically, “that’s how it is” is too declarative for that which we don’t know.
Being asked an endless series of questions for me is going to end with “I don’t know”.
Why don’t you know?
I don’t know.
Why don’t you don’t know why you don’t know?
…
if you really want to play this game:
You’re in the same boat.