Difference between revisions of "Reason" - New World Encyclopedia

Revision as of 20:49, 30 April 2007

Template:Cleanup

For other uses, see Reason (disambiguation).

In philosophy, reason is the ability to form and operate upon concepts in abstraction, in accordance with rationality and logic—terms with which reason shares heritage. Reason, like consciousness with which it is also intimately connected, has traditionally been claimed as distinctly human, and not to be found elsewhere in the animal world. However, recent studies in this area show that, in lower levels, animals are capable of some types of thinking similar to that of humans. Discussion and debate about the nature, limits and causes of reason have been important through the history of philosophy. Discussion about reason especially concerns:

(a) its relationship to several other related concepts: language, logic, consciousness etc,
(b) its ability to help people decide what is true, and
(c) its origin.

Also see practical reason and speculative reason.

The concept of reason is connected to the concept of language, as reflected in the meanings of the Greek word "logos", later to be translated by Latin "ratio" and then French "raison", from which the English word derived. As reason, rationality, and logic are all associated with the ability of the human mind to predict effects as based upon presumed causes, the word "reason" also denotes a ground or basis for a particular argument, and hence is used synonymously with the word "cause".

Reason and logic

While reason is a type of thought, logic is a field of study which categorizes ways of justifying conclusions that are in accordance with reason.

This contrast between reason and logic thus extends back to the writings of Aristotle. Although the Greeks had no separate word for logic as opposed to language and reason, Aristotle's neologism "syllogism" (syllogismos) identified logic clearly for the first time as a distinct field of study. (When Aristotle referred to "the logical" the source of our word "logic" he was referring more broadly to reason or the rational.)

Reason and logic can be thought to be distinct, although logic is one important aspect of reason. But the tendency to a preference for "hard logic," or "solid logic," in modern times has incorrectly led to the two terms occasionally being seen as essentially synonymous (see Reasoning) or perhaps more often logic is seen as the defining and pure form of reason.

However machines and animals can unconsciously perform logical operations, and many animals (including humans) can unconsciously, associate different perceptions as causes and effects and then make decisions or even plans. Therefore, to have any distinct meaning at all, “reason” must be the type of thinking which links language, consciousness and logic, and at this time, only humans are known to combine these things.

Although this is an old discussion, the neurologist Terrence Deacon, following the tradition of Peirce, has recently given a useful new description in modern terms. Like many philosophers in the English traditions such as Hobbes, Locke and Hume, he starts by distinguishing the type of thinking which is most essential to human rational thinking as a type of associative thinking. Reason by his account therefore requires associating perceptions in a way which may be arbitrary (or nominal, conventional or "formal") - not just associating the image or "icon" of smoke and the image of fire, but, for example, the image of smoke and the English word "smoke", or indeed any made-up symbol (not necessarily a spoken word). What is essentially rational, or at least essentially human, is however not the arbitrariness of symbols, but how they are used. See below concerning Reason and Language.

Reason, truth, and “first principles”

Already in classical times a conflict between the Platonists and the Aristotelians developed about reason's role in confirming truth. Both Aristotle and Plato were aware of this as a question all philosophy must consider. On the one hand people use logical syllogisms such as deduction and induction in order to come to conclusions they feel are more infallible than our basic sense perceptions. On the other hand, if such conclusions are only built upon sense perceptions, then our most logical conclusions can never be said to be certain because they are built upon fallible perceptions (or fallible interpretations of perceptions). So given the impression that we are sometimes certain, as well as the desire to be certain, the question arises as to the source of our first principles. Is it only experience as claimed in “empiricist” arguments (associated by some as being more Aristotelian, and more recently with British philosophers such as David Hume); or is there some other “faculty” from which we derive our consciousness of at least some “a priori” truths (a position called “idealist” and associated with Platonism); or are there certain undeniable axioms that form the base for all other faculties and experiences (a position supported by the Scottish School of Common Sense as exemplified by Thomas Reid, and more recently by Objectivism)?

In Greek, “first principles” are arkhai, starting points, and the faculty used to perceive them is sometimes referred to in Aristotle and Plato as “nous” which was close in meaning to “awareness” and therefore “consciousness”. This leaves open the question of whether we become aware by building up and comparing experiences, or some other way.

Modern proponents of a priori reasoning, at least with regards to language, are Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker, to whom Merlin Donald and Terrence Deacon can be very usefully contrasted.

Reason, language and mimesis

The recent writings of Deacon and Donald fit into an older tradition which makes reason connected to language, and mimesis, but more specifically the ability to create language as part of an internal modelling of reality specific to humankind. Other results are consciousness, and imagination or fantasy.

Thomas Hobbes describes the creation of “Markes, or Notes of remembrance” (Leviathan Ch.4) as “speech” (allowing by his definition that it is not necessarily a means of communication or speech in the normal sense; he was presumably thinking of "speech" as an English version of "logos" in this description). In the context of a language, these marks or notes are called "Signes" by Hobbes.

David Hume, following John Locke (and Berkeley), who followed Hobbes, emphasized the importance of associative thinking.

Concerning mimesis and fantasy being important in defining reason, see for example Aristotle's Poetics, De Anima, On Dreams, and On Memory and Recollection (and for example the Introduction by Michael Davis, printed with the 2002 translation by him and Seth Benardete of the Poetics), Jacob Klein’s A Commentary on the Meno Ch.5, and Tolkien's essay "On Fairy Stories".

Reason, truth, and emotion or passion

In literature, reason is often opposed to emotions or feelings, and desires, drives or passions. Others see reason as the servant or tool of these things — the means of sorting out our desires and then getting what we want. Some would say however that many of the key philosophers of history (e.g. Plato, Rousseau, Hume, Nietzsche) have combined both views - making rational thinking not only a tool of desires, but also something which is itself desired, not only because of its usefulness in satisfying other desires.

At the same time, reason sometimes clearly seems to come into conflict with some desires (even while not being in conflict with others) giving us the impression that reason is separate from emotion. Only in humans, choices are sometimes made on the basis of an association of ideas which is an artificially constructed model, rather than an un-inspected association based on raw experience, and this “feels” different from when one is won over by a passion supported by raw “feeling”. The opposite is also unique – we sometimes feel that a passion has won over our decision-making “unjustly”, despite having lost its argument, or perhaps (in the case, for example, of a reflex action) not even having been a subject of argument before the action took place.

The question of whether reason is in fact driven by emotions is important for philosophers because reason is seen by almost all philosophers as being the way that we come to know the truth, and we see the truth as something which exists outside of our own consciousness. If reason is driven by emotions, then how can we ever know that we are not deceiving ourselves about what is true by denying undesirable information in favor of a more pleasing construct of our world?

Reason and faith, especially in the “Greater West”

In theology, reason, as distinguished from faith, is the human critical faculty exercised upon religious truth whether by way of discovery or by way of explanation. Some commentators have claimed that Western civilization can be almost defined by its serious testing of the limits of tension between “unaided” reason and faith in "revealed" truths - figuratively summarised as Athens and Jerusalem, respectively. Leo Strauss spoke of a "Greater West" which included all areas under the influence of the tension between Greek rationalism and Abrahamic revelation, including the Muslim lands. He was particularly influenced by the great Muslim philosopher Al-Farabi. In order to consider to what extent Eastern philosophy might have partaken of these important tensions, it is perhaps best to consider whether dharma or tao may be equivalent to Nature (by which we mean physis in Greek).

The limits within which reason may be used have been laid down differently in different churches and periods of thought: on the whole, modern religion tends to allow to reason a wide field, reserving, however, as the sphere of faith the ultimate (supernatural) truths of theology.

Reason as an intrinsic part of nature

Wilhelm Reich, the controversial Austrian psychiatrist and naturalist, followed in Hegel's footsteps in perceiving reason not reduced to analytic deduction or mechanistic one-dimensional induction, but as being a primal part of the depth structure of nature itself; "a trait that pulsated from the heart of nature and was thus manifested in all living things"^[1]. Viewed in these terms reason becomes an ontological term rather than an epistemological one. That is, reason is understood here as having an objective existence apart from its relation to the mental operations of any observers.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

↑ Corrington, Robert S., Wilhelm Reich. Psychoanalyst and Radical Naturalist. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2003 pp.128-129

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1999). Philosophy In The Flesh. Basic Books.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Reason ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

History of "Reason"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

[1] Corrington, Robert S., Wilhelm Reich. Psychoanalyst and Radical Naturalist. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2003 pp.128-129

[1]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{wanted}}{{claimed}}
+{{Cleanup|date=January 2007}}
+{{otheruses}}
-{{wanted}}
+In [[philosophy]], '''reason''' is the ability to form and operate upon [[concept]]s in [[abstraction]], in accordance with [[rationality]] and [[logic]]—terms with which reason shares heritage. Reason, like [[consciousness]] with which it is also intimately connected, has traditionally been claimed as distinctly human, and not to be found elsewhere in the animal world. However, recent studies in [[Animal cognition|this area]] show that, in lower levels, animals are capable of some types of thinking similar to that of humans. Discussion and debate about the nature, limits and causes of reason have been important through the [[history of philosophy]]. Discussion about reason especially concerns:
+* (a) its relationship to several other related concepts: language, logic, [[consciousness]] etc,
+* (b) its ability to help people decide what is [[true]], and
+* (c) its origin.
+Also see [[practical reason]] and [[speculative reason]].
+The concept of reason is connected to the concept of [[language]], as reflected in the meanings of the Greek word "[[logos]]", later to be translated by Latin "ratio" and then French "raison", from which the English word derived.
+As ''reason, rationality, and logic'' are all associated with the ability of the human mind to [[prediction|predict]] effects as based upon presumed [[cause]]s, the word "reason" also denotes a ground or basis for a particular argument, and hence is used synonymously with the word "cause".
+==Reason and logic==
+While reason is a type of thought, logic is a field of study which categorizes ways of justifying conclusions that are in accordance with reason.
+This contrast between reason and [[logic]] thus extends back to the writings of Aristotle. Although the Greeks had no separate word for logic as opposed to language and reason, Aristotle's [[neologism]] "[[syllogism]]" (syllogismos) identified logic clearly for the first time as a distinct field of study. (When Aristotle referred to "the logical" the source of our word "logic" he was referring more broadly to reason or the rational.)
+Reason and logic can be thought to be distinct, although logic is one important aspect of reason. But the tendency to a preference for "hard logic," or "solid logic," in [[Modern Times (history)|modern times]] has incorrectly led to the two terms occasionally being seen as essentially [[synonym]]ous (see [[Reasoning]]) or perhaps more often logic is seen as the defining and pure form of reason.
+However machines and animals can unconsciously perform logical operations, and many animals (including humans) can [[unconsciously]], associate different [[perceptions]] as [[cause and effect|causes and effects]] and then make [[decisions]] or even plans. Therefore, to have any distinct meaning at all, “reason” must be the type of thinking which links language, consciousness and logic, and at this time, only humans are known to combine these things.
+Although this is an old discussion, the neurologist [[Terrence Deacon]], following the tradition of [[Charles Peirce|Peirce]], has recently given a useful new description in modern terms. Like many philosophers in the English traditions such as [[Hobbes]], [[Locke]] and [[Hume]], he starts by distinguishing the type of thinking which is most essential to human rational thinking as a type of [[Association (psychology)|associative thinking]]. Reason by his account therefore requires associating [[perception]]s in a way which may be arbitrary (or [[nominal]], [[Convention (norm)|conventional]] or "[[formal]]") - not just associating the [[image]] or "[[icon]]" of smoke and the [[image]] of fire, but, for example, the [[image]] of smoke and the English word "smoke", or indeed any made-up [[symbol]] (not necessarily a spoken word). What is essentially rational, or at least essentially human, is however not the arbitrariness of symbols, but how they are used. See below concerning Reason and Language.
+== Reason, truth, and “first principles” ==
+Already in classical times a conflict between the [[Platonism|Platonists]] and the [[Aristotelianism|Aristotelians]] developed about reason's role in confirming [[truth]]. Both Aristotle and Plato were aware of this as a question all philosophy must consider. On the one hand people use logical syllogisms such as [[deduction]] and [[inductive reasoning|induction]] in order to come to conclusions they feel are more infallible than our basic sense perceptions. On the other hand, if such conclusions are only built upon sense perceptions, then our most logical conclusions can never be said to be certain because they are built upon fallible perceptions (or fallible interpretations of perceptions). So given the impression that we are sometimes certain, as well as the desire to be certain, the question arises as to the source of our first principles. Is it only experience as claimed in “[[empiricism|empiricist]]” arguments (associated by some as being more Aristotelian, and more recently with British philosophers such as [[David Hume]]); or is there some other “faculty” from which we derive our consciousness of at least some “[[A priori and a posteriori (philosophy)|a priori]]” truths (a position called “[[idealist]]” and associated with Platonism); or are there certain undeniable axioms that form the base for all other faculties and experiences (a position supported by the [[Scottish School of Common Sense]] as exemplified by [[Thomas Reid]], and more recently by [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)|Objectivism]])?
+In Greek, “[[first principles]]” are [[arche|arkhai]], starting points, and the faculty used to perceive them is sometimes referred to in Aristotle and Plato as “[[nous]]” which was close in meaning to “awareness” and therefore “consciousness”. This leaves open the question of whether we become aware by building up and comparing experiences, or some other way.
+Modern proponents of [[A priori and a posteriori (philosophy)|a priori]] reasoning, at least with regards to language, are [[Noam Chomsky]] and [[Steven Pinker]], to whom [[Merlin Donald]] and [[Terrence Deacon]] can be very usefully contrasted.
+== Reason, language and mimesis ==
+The recent writings of Deacon and Donald fit into an older tradition which makes reason connected to [[language]], and [[mimesis]], but more specifically the ability to create [[language]] as part of an internal modelling of [[reality]] specific to humankind. Other results are consciousness, and [[imagination]] or [[fantasy]].
+Thomas Hobbes describes the creation of “Markes, or Notes of remembrance” (''[[Leviathan (book)|Leviathan]]'' Ch.4) as “[[speech]]” (allowing by his definition that it is not necessarily a means of communication or speech in the normal sense; he was presumably thinking of "speech" as an English version of "[[logos]]" in this description). In the context of a language, these marks or notes are called "[[Sign]]es" by Hobbes.
+[[David Hume]], following [[John Locke]] (and [[George Berkeley|Berkeley]]), who followed Hobbes, emphasized the importance of associative thinking.
+Concerning mimesis and fantasy being important in defining reason, see for example Aristotle's [[Poetics (Aristotle)|Poetics]], [[De Anima]], [[On Dreams]], and [[On Memory|On Memory and Recollection]] (and for example the Introduction by Michael Davis, printed with the 2002 translation by him and [[Seth Benardete]] of the Poetics), Jacob Klein’s ''A Commentary on the Meno'' Ch.5, and [[Tolkien]]'s essay "On Fairy Stories".
+== Reason, truth, and emotion or passion ==
+In literature, reason is often opposed to [[emotions]] or [[feelings]], and desires, drives or passions. Others see reason as the servant or tool of these things — the means of sorting out our desires and then getting what we want. Some would say however that many of the key philosophers of history (e.g. [[Plato]], [[Rousseau]], [[David Hume|Hume]], [[Nietzsche]]) have combined both views - making rational thinking not only a tool of desires, but also something which is itself desired, not only because of its usefulness in satisfying other desires.
+At the same time, reason sometimes clearly seems to come into conflict with some desires (even while not being in conflict with others) giving us the impression that reason is separate from emotion. Only in humans, choices are sometimes made on the basis of an association of ideas which is an artificially constructed model, rather than an un-inspected association based on raw experience, and this “feels” different from when one is won over by a passion supported by raw “feeling”. The opposite is also unique – we sometimes feel that a passion has won over our [[decision-making]] “unjustly”, despite having lost its argument, or perhaps (in the case, for example, of a [[reflex]] action) not even having been a subject of argument before the action took place.
+The question of whether reason is in fact driven by emotions is important for philosophers because reason is seen by almost all philosophers as being the way that we come to know the [[truth]], and we see the truth as something which exists outside of our own [[consciousness]]. If reason is driven by emotions, then how can we ever know that we are not deceiving ourselves about what is true by denying undesirable information in favor of a more pleasing construct of our world?
+==Reason and faith, especially in the “Greater West”==
+In [[theology]], reason, as distinguished from [[faith]], is the human critical faculty exercised upon religious truth whether by way of discovery or by way of explanation. Some commentators have claimed that [[Western civilization]] can be almost defined by its serious testing of the limits of tension between “unaided” reason and [[faith]] in "[[revelation|revealed]]" truths - figuratively summarised as [[Athens]] and [[Jerusalem]], respectively. [[Leo Strauss]] spoke of a "Greater [[Western world|West]]" which included all areas under the influence of the tension between Greek rationalism and [[Abrahamic]] revelation, including the [[Muslim]] lands. He was particularly influenced by the great [[Islamic philosophy|Muslim philosopher]] [[Farabi|Al-Farabi]]. In order to consider to what extent [[Eastern philosophy]] might have partaken of these important tensions, it is perhaps best to consider whether [[dharma]] or [[tao]] may be equivalent to [[Nature]] (by which we mean ''[[physis]]'' in Greek).
+The limits within which reason may be used have been laid down differently in different churches and periods of thought: on the whole, modern religion tends to allow to reason a wide field, reserving, however, as the sphere of faith the ultimate ([[supernatural]]) truths of theology.
+==Reason as an intrinsic part of nature==
+[[Wilhelm Reich]], the controversial Austrian psychiatrist and naturalist, followed in [[Hegel]]'s footsteps in perceiving reason not reduced to analytic deduction or mechanistic one-dimensional induction, but as being a primal part of the depth structure of nature itself; "a trait that pulsated from the heart of nature and was thus manifested in all living things"<ref>[[Robert S. Corrington|Corrington, Robert S.]], ''Wilhelm Reich. Psychoanalyst and Radical Naturalist''. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2003 pp.128-129</ref>. Viewed in these terms ''reason'' becomes an [[ontology|ontological]] term rather than an epistemological one. That is, reason is understood here as having an objective existence apart from its relation to the mental operations of any observers.
+==References==
+<references/>
+* [[George Lakoff]] and [[Mark Johnson (professor)|Mark Johnson]] (1999). ''Philosophy In The Flesh''. Basic Books.
+==See also==
+{{Wiktionary|reason}}
+* [[Conscience]]
+* [[Deism]]
+* [[Empiricism]]
+* [[Fantasy]]
+* [[Inquiry]]
+* [[Logic]]
+* [[Language]]
+* [[Mimesis]]
+* [[Mind]]
+* [[Nous]]
+* [[Rationality]]
+* [[Reason (magazine)|Reason magazine]]
+{{enlightenment}}
+[[Category:Epistemology]]
+[[Category:Belief]]
+[[Category:Logic]]
+[[Category:Thought]]
+[[Category:Virtues]]
+[[ar:عقل (فلسفة)]]
+[[ca:Raó]]
+[[da:Ræsonnere]]
+[[de:Vernunft]]
+[[el:Λογική]]
+[[es:Razón (filosofía)]]
+[[eo:Racio]]
+[[fr:Raison]]
+[[ko:이성]]
+[[ia:Ration]]
+[[it:Ragione]]
+[[nl:Rede]]
+[[ja:理性]]
+[[pl:Rozum]]
+[[pt:Razão]]
+[[ru:Разум]]
+[[sq:Arsyeja]]
+[[simple:Reason]]
+[[sr:Разум]]
+[[fi:Järki]]
+[[sv:Förnuft]]
+[[vi:Lý tính]]
+{{credit|126377081}}