A Specific Kind Of Irrationalism

It is obvious to any willing thinker that reason is inherently true.  Nothing else could be obvious in itself.  For it to be false, it would still have to logically follow from something that deductive reasoning (the logical facts themselves as well as the mental recognition of them) is false; it would have to be true that a concept or object is not what it is, but is instead something other than itself, which would still be what it is.  It would have to be true that truth does not exist in any form, which still requires that something is true, and it would still be true if contradictions are possible that non-contradiction is false, again demanding its own error.  No one could try to "disprove" reason without relying on it and thus their ideology is impossible by default.

Irrationalism of all sorts cannot be true.  Its veracity would by necessity entail its falsity!  The kind of irrationalism mentioned above, however, is not just the idea that believing in something on the basis of something other than logical necessity with no assumptions is valid, such as belief in the assumed accuracy of scientific observation, epistemological faith, intuition, hearsay, and so on.  It is the idea that logical axioms are metaphysically false or nonexistent and that reason is a illusion, though this would still require that it logically follows from reason being subjective that it does not connect with anything about external reality.

Ignoring or unaware of this impossibility, a certain kind of irrationalist might think or say that relying on reason does not prove logic is necessarily true or self-evident if only someone does not try to use reason: they would just believe blindly that axioms are false or unverifiable.  While relying on reason is not the core reason why logical axioms are true, as they are true in themselves independent of awareness or anything else, is is the case that noticing how one must use deductive reasoning to assess anything is often an easy way to start discovering that deductive reasoning verifies itself.  What if someone just did not try to actively reason out why reason is supposedly false?

They would actually still be relying on reason, which would have to be something other than their subjective thoughts to be valid anyway, because of the fact that they are somewhat recognizing that if they are not using reason, they would never realize that reason must be used in vain to disprove itself.  They are inevitably still relying on the fact that logical axioms like the intrinsic truths of deductive reasoning dictate reality!  A self-evident necessary truth cannot be false due to any perception or circumstance because all possible perceptions and circumstances could not contradict it.  Nothing that contradicts a necessary truth could itself be true.

It does also follow from reason being necessarily true on its own that it exists as as the only metaphysical thing that could not possibly not exist.  Logical axioms and what follows from them are more than just epistemological truths or things that are only true of and thus because of other things.  One could know that reason is intrinsically true without realizing this, that the laws of logic exist in the absence of all else and that even God could cease to exist, but not them.  All it would take is for them to perhaps first think about how they are already relying on reason despite making vague assumptions about it, and then they could focus directly on reason, which could lead to them fully embracing how axioms are self-verifying and inherently true regardless of one's perceptions.  Even trying to blankly believe reason is false, though, still relies on reason metaphysically and epistemologically!