4 ms·

It isn't. Thinking that it is objective is an example of non-rational thinking.

• epgui 5y ago
  This disagreement results from your inability to accept a definition to work from (ie.: the premise).
  • hogFeast 5y ago
    I gave you a definition (once again, you are starting from the viewpoint that my view is invalid because I refuse a definition...a pattern is appearing). The actual epistemic logic is more complex but, for the purposes of this discussion, the point is that you can define these things as things that reasonable people can disagree about because: there is no clear evidence, and people will weigh that evidence differently. It makes no sense to say that these things should be removed from the internet because they are "irrational"...Galileo was regarded as "irrational" too, the nature of new information is that it breaks down existing systems of thought. To be clear too, believing in rational universalism is an example of irrational thinking. No "rationalist" philosopher ever believed in universalism. Theories like logical positivism were explicitly non-universal in regarding some things as unknowable. The only real application of universalism has, typically, been in German fascist political philosophy with ideas like the Volk...it is in an inherently political/cultural concept...again, the irony of this is a bit much but the precise reason why these theories exist is because they are people who think that we just need to shut discussion down.