The Epistemological Crisis of Rationality in the Age of Artificial Intelligence Through the Lens of 4E Cognition and Postphenomenology
Philosophies July 8, 2026 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.3390/philosophies11040115 via Semantic Scholar
Summary
Working with large language models risks normalizing a practice where a machine-generated text is accepted as a justified claim before the user has checked its sources or taken responsibility for it. This crisis of rationality stems not from a technical flaw but from a shift in how justification works: fluent textual coherence is mistaken for genuine understanding and rational judgment. Drawing on 4E cognition and postphenomenology, the analysis frames LLMs as multistable moral-epistemic mediators, not as rational subjects or neutral tools. A four-cluster protocol for attributing rationality is proposed, introducing an epistemic pause between a generated formulation and its acceptance as a claim. The core danger is not machine consciousness but the normalization of accepting ready-made text as a ground.
Study at a glance
| Design | theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Key finding | The normalization of accepting LLM-generated text as a justified claim before verifying its sources constitutes a crisis of rationality. |
Abstract
Everyday work with large language models (LLMs) normalizes a practice in which a generated formulation supports judgment before the user has checked its grounds. This crisis of rationality arises not from a single technical defect in the system, but from a shift in justificatory practice in which fluent textual coherence is read as evidence of semantic understanding and rational judgment. The method brings conceptual analysis into contact with 4E cognition and a postphenomenological account of technological mediation. Within this framework, LLMs are described neither as autonomous rational subjects nor as neutral instruments, but as multistable moral-epistemic mediators of human rationality. The analysis distinguishes textual competence from world-involved understanding and relates interface mediation to trust and responsibility. On this basis, the article proposes a four-cluster protocol for the attribution of rationality, which introduces an epistemic pause as a route of verification between a generated formulation and its authorial acceptance as a claim. The central risk lies not in whether machine consciousness has been proven, but in the normalization of practices in which ready-made text acquires the status of a ground before the user has reconstructed its sources and accepted responsibility for what is asserted.