The rational explanation of the world

When we search for a rational explanation of the world, there are just two possible approaches: to assume that kinds are real or assume that kinds are our inventions (called realism and nominalism, respectively), because kinds is the building blocks of rational explanations.

The problem with this limitation is that the former (ie, realism) ends in Russell’s paradox (ie, a paradoxical inconsistency), whereas the latter (ie, nominalism) has at least two ends (ie, an ambiguity), meaning that there in practice isn’t any single rational explanation of the world.

We can thus rationally understand that there isn’t any single rational explanation of the world before we start searching it. Instead, it means that the rational  explanation of the world is that there isn’t any single rational explanation of it, ie, that the place for this explanation is void.

The rational explanation of the world is thus that there isn’t any single rational explanation of the world (sorry to say).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s