Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:36:06 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Produced by PhpWiki 1.3.2-jeffs-hacks)
Content-Type: application/x-phpwiki;
  pagename=PancriticalRationalism;
  flags="";
  author=DavidLucifer;
  version=7;
  lastmodified=1055882166;
  author_id=DavidLucifer;
  markup=2;
  hits=14336;
  charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary

Introduced in William Bartley's TheRetreatToCommitment, PCR is a nonjustificational philosophy of criticism where no position (including PCR itself) is beyond critism. In other words, __no [dogma]__.

Check out MaxMore's [essay|http://www.maxmore.com/pcr.htm].

----

[JakeSapiens] 03.01.07 (from the BBS "[Unreason|http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=25561;start=60]" thread)First the belief that a system of reasoning must have "axioms".  From the various ways I have heard this word used, I assume we mean a set of assumptions.  A set of some sort of "prereason" positions which our very being here to think about it presume.  I call this kind of thinking foundationalism.  It has a few good things to say for itself, and many rational thinkers operate from such a foundational position.

But to think that rational thinking requires foundationalism presents a point that pancritical rationalism takes issue with.  Pancritical rationalists argue instead that rationalism as a process occurs contingently, or "in the middle of things".  We can name common axioms, however we commonly discover that different starting assumptions can converge on similar reasonable positions through a process of rational criticism.  Hence one's "axioms" may as easily prove a simple byproduct of historical happenstance, instead of any actual central necessity to living a rational life.

The conceptual difference lies in that a pancritical rationalist holds all representations in principle subject to rational criticism.  Perhaps some representations become circumstantially more important, and hence we recognize this by calling them "axioms".  But that does not in principle exempt them from rational criticism either should the issue reasonably arise.

You (garyrob) say reason must have "grounding", and "axioms".  Perhaps it does have that, but the more distinctively reasonable moments can occur when we choose to become more contingent, and when we can more comfortably question our axioms as well. -Jake


See other InterestingMemes.
