roger wasson company - cheapersunglasses.com

the case, since such an assertion is itself a rational one or not. If
it is not rational, then it is false; and if it is a rational assertion,
then it is also false---in the first case because it would be meaningless
and could lay no claim to truth; in the second case because
it would then contradict its own assertion. In brief: the
denial of the world’s rationality is either unintelligible, or as itself
an intelligible statement about the world, undercuts its own
structure. The world must therefore be rational, so that the
identification of the real with the rational is thoroughly justified.
As for the query concerning why there should be problems
at all in a rational universe---it is not the existence of problems,
but only the existence of insoluble problems, that would make
an insuperable difficulty at this point. But it is precisely the
contention of rational empiricism, as I profess it, that there are
no ultimately insoluble problems. That problems exist, for a
finite intelligence, is traceable to the fact that rationality, in
such a finite being, involves a process in which data are progressively
apprehended in categorical fashion; and to the fact
that, as previously explained, an erroneous application to experience
is possible. For an ultimate mind---and to such our
argument will eventually lead---no such problems would exist:
for such a mind would apprehend the whole content of experiential
data in a timelessly necessary intuition.
(5) As for the assertion that the number of categories is indeterminable
since it would depend on the content of given judgments---[[Page
88]]
We have already pointed out precisely how the number of
categories may be determined: all those presuppositions are
categories without which the whole range of intelligible predication
would be impossible, so that these presuppositions are
determinable from the basic types of logical judgment. If there
were no such basic presuppositions, predications would be initially
impossible.