Confidence in Reason
Please be reasonable! Let us reason together. There was no reason for that. What do we mean by these common expressions?
Ignoring the fact that these are generally just common exclamations by most of us that are meaningful only in their emotional content; what is the source of our indication of reliance on ‘reason’?
Western philosophy emerged in the sixth century BC along the Ionian coast. A small group of scientist-philosophers began writing about their attempts to develop “rational†accounts regarding human experience. These early Pre-Socratic thinkers thought that they were dealing with fundamental elements of nature.
It is natural for humans to seek knowledge. In the “Metaphysics†Aristotle wrote “All men by nature desire to knowâ€.
The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding. We assume many things because our ‘gut’ tells us that: 1) the world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it: 2) every particular thing is a kind of thing; 3) every entity has an “essence†or “nature,†that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior.
We may not want our friends to know this fact but we are all metaphysicians. We, in fact, assume that things have a nature thereby we are led by the metaphysical impulse to seek knowledge at various levels of reality.
Now back to ‘confidence in reason’. I guess the Greeks were the first to systematize our belief that reason can be an important factor in making life better; that reason can provide us with a means to convince others that this particular way is the better way of reaching the desired goal; a mutual confidence in reason becomes one of life’s most important goals.
Why a ‘mutual confidence in reason’ becomes one of life’s most important goals? Because of the disaster to all of us that is derived from an intellectual distrust of reason.
I think that one of the important duties we all have is to help others formulate a confidence in reason.
I think that we can find in our self many times that a confidence in reason is displaced by a belief that is not grounded in reason. Examples might be faith in charismatic leaders, faith in ‘authority’, faith in some social group, faith in our ‘gut’, faith in fate, faith in technology, faith in unanalyzed experience, faith in someone because s/he is a successful maker of money, etc.
I think that we place far too much confidence in irrational opinions? Do you agree?
Confidence in Reason
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Confidence in Reason
Where would you classify belief in God? And for others, their own religious beliefs?
I would not consider that irrational. I would consider that a sound belief system. When there is visible proof that God exists, and takes an active role in your life-by daily life experience examples-then it is not irrational at all.
Please define your conept of "reason" more. You began with the pre-Socratic method, but dropped it at that point. Philosophical reasoning through the intervening time periods has developed into many diverse ways of thinking, and each have their own definition of reason. You cannot jump to "a confidence in reason" without a sound definition of reason itself.
I would not consider that irrational. I would consider that a sound belief system. When there is visible proof that God exists, and takes an active role in your life-by daily life experience examples-then it is not irrational at all.
Please define your conept of "reason" more. You began with the pre-Socratic method, but dropped it at that point. Philosophical reasoning through the intervening time periods has developed into many diverse ways of thinking, and each have their own definition of reason. You cannot jump to "a confidence in reason" without a sound definition of reason itself.
Confidence in Reason
Chonsi
To put the matter into a nutshell I would say that a person who wishes to reason well is a Critical Thinker, i.e. s/he has learned the technical skills that are contained in Logic 101 and has added to that the attitude of critical self-consciousness. Logic 101 contains the knowledge regarding the essential characteristics of reasoning in a logical manner.
We are all born with an innate ability to reason but this innate ability must be improved for a person to reason with any degree of quality.
The following is an elaboration if you wish to read it.
I once asked a philosophy professor “What is philosophy about?†He said philosophy is “radically critical self-consciousnessâ€. This was 35 years ago. Only in the last five years have I begun to understand that statement
I took a number of courses in philosophy three decades ago but it was not until I began to study and understand Critical Thinking that I began to understand what “radically critical self-consciousness†meant.
I consider CT to be ‘philosophy light’. CT differs from other subject matter such as mathematics and geography in that it requires, for success, that the student develop a significant change in attitude.
Anyone who has been in military service recognizes the significant attitude adjustment introduced into all recruits in the eight weeks of boot camp. During the first eight weeks of military service each recruit is introduced to the proper military attitude. During the eight weeks of basic training there is certain knowledge and skills that the recruit learns but primarily s/he undergoes a significant attitude adjustment.
I would identify the CT attitude adjustment to be a movement from naïve common sense realism to critical self-consciousness. It is necessary to free many words and concepts from the limited meaning attached by normal usageâ€such a separation requires that the learner hold in abeyance the normal sort of concept associations.
The individual who has made the attitude adjustment recognizes that reality is multilayered and that one can only penetrate those layers through a critical attitude toward both the self and the world. To be critical does not mean to be negative, as is a common misunderstanding.
If we were to follow the cat and the turtle as they make their way through the forest we would observe two fundamentally different ways that a creature might make its way through life.
The turtle withdraws into its shell when it bumps into something new, and remains such until that something new disappears or remains long enough to become familiar to the turtle. The cat is conscious of almost everything within the range of its senses, and studies all it perceives until its curiosity is satisfied.
Formal education teaches by telling so that the graduate is prepared with a sufficient database to get a job. Such an education efficiently prepares one to make a living, but this efficiency is at the cost of curiosity and imagination. Such an education does not prepare an individual to become critically self-conscious.
If we wish to emulate the cat rather than the turtle we must revitalize our curiosity and imagination after formal education. That revitalized curiosity and imagination, together with self directed study prepares each of us for a fulfilling life that includes the ecstasy of understanding.
I think that radically critical self-consciousness combines the attitude adjustment of CT and combines it with the curiosity of the cat and then takes that combination to a radical level.
To put the matter into a nutshell I would say that a Critical Thinker has learned how to reason, i.e. s/he has learned the technical skills that are contained in Logic 101 and has added to that the attitude of critical self-consciousness.
A good place to begin CT is: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm
To put the matter into a nutshell I would say that a person who wishes to reason well is a Critical Thinker, i.e. s/he has learned the technical skills that are contained in Logic 101 and has added to that the attitude of critical self-consciousness. Logic 101 contains the knowledge regarding the essential characteristics of reasoning in a logical manner.
We are all born with an innate ability to reason but this innate ability must be improved for a person to reason with any degree of quality.
The following is an elaboration if you wish to read it.
I once asked a philosophy professor “What is philosophy about?†He said philosophy is “radically critical self-consciousnessâ€. This was 35 years ago. Only in the last five years have I begun to understand that statement
I took a number of courses in philosophy three decades ago but it was not until I began to study and understand Critical Thinking that I began to understand what “radically critical self-consciousness†meant.
I consider CT to be ‘philosophy light’. CT differs from other subject matter such as mathematics and geography in that it requires, for success, that the student develop a significant change in attitude.
Anyone who has been in military service recognizes the significant attitude adjustment introduced into all recruits in the eight weeks of boot camp. During the first eight weeks of military service each recruit is introduced to the proper military attitude. During the eight weeks of basic training there is certain knowledge and skills that the recruit learns but primarily s/he undergoes a significant attitude adjustment.
I would identify the CT attitude adjustment to be a movement from naïve common sense realism to critical self-consciousness. It is necessary to free many words and concepts from the limited meaning attached by normal usageâ€such a separation requires that the learner hold in abeyance the normal sort of concept associations.
The individual who has made the attitude adjustment recognizes that reality is multilayered and that one can only penetrate those layers through a critical attitude toward both the self and the world. To be critical does not mean to be negative, as is a common misunderstanding.
If we were to follow the cat and the turtle as they make their way through the forest we would observe two fundamentally different ways that a creature might make its way through life.
The turtle withdraws into its shell when it bumps into something new, and remains such until that something new disappears or remains long enough to become familiar to the turtle. The cat is conscious of almost everything within the range of its senses, and studies all it perceives until its curiosity is satisfied.
Formal education teaches by telling so that the graduate is prepared with a sufficient database to get a job. Such an education efficiently prepares one to make a living, but this efficiency is at the cost of curiosity and imagination. Such an education does not prepare an individual to become critically self-conscious.
If we wish to emulate the cat rather than the turtle we must revitalize our curiosity and imagination after formal education. That revitalized curiosity and imagination, together with self directed study prepares each of us for a fulfilling life that includes the ecstasy of understanding.
I think that radically critical self-consciousness combines the attitude adjustment of CT and combines it with the curiosity of the cat and then takes that combination to a radical level.
To put the matter into a nutshell I would say that a Critical Thinker has learned how to reason, i.e. s/he has learned the technical skills that are contained in Logic 101 and has added to that the attitude of critical self-consciousness.
A good place to begin CT is: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Confidence in Reason
Coberst, I am trying to draw out different responses from you. I see you did not address the question about God/religion.
I teach Logic 101 classes, I know the basics.
I understand your emphasis on CT, it is your viewpoint. I sometimes wish for a more broadening philosophical discussion on the various viewpoints of philosophy. There are many, and they would make for great discussions. I am sure more would participate it if the subject matter was enlarged.
I have read the different links you have provided in previous threads. I like to discuss philosophy itself, because there are many differing opinions how to reach the reasoning and comprehension of the world itself.
Please forgive me if I sound sharp, it is a hard day for me on the flip side of the world. I really like your threads.
I teach Logic 101 classes, I know the basics.
I understand your emphasis on CT, it is your viewpoint. I sometimes wish for a more broadening philosophical discussion on the various viewpoints of philosophy. There are many, and they would make for great discussions. I am sure more would participate it if the subject matter was enlarged.
I have read the different links you have provided in previous threads. I like to discuss philosophy itself, because there are many differing opinions how to reach the reasoning and comprehension of the world itself.
Please forgive me if I sound sharp, it is a hard day for me on the flip side of the world. I really like your threads.
Confidence in Reason
Chonsi
Sorry I thought you taught history. I guess I get into a rut on these forums. Almost everyone is a critical thinker but almost no one knows what Critical Thinking is and furthermore they defiantly desire not to know. So I tend to make my constant replies thinking that if a person hears the concept repeated often enough the person will become curious about it.
You might tell me if your school teaches CT. Are you familiar with CT as Richard Paul writes about it? You indicate that CT as I talk about it is not the CT in your understanding of CT. Are my views on CT a minority view?
Please enlarge the matter about philosophy. I am sorry I failed to catch your pitch but perhaps I am so accustomed to a certain kind of responder I get into a rut.
I applaud your being sharp. I would love to express my opinion on other philosophical issues. I evidently overlooked your question about God/religion. Point me to that place you asked the question and I will try to respond. I am not, however, often inclined to talk religion because I try to stay away from matters that tend to lead into emotional rants.
Sorry I thought you taught history. I guess I get into a rut on these forums. Almost everyone is a critical thinker but almost no one knows what Critical Thinking is and furthermore they defiantly desire not to know. So I tend to make my constant replies thinking that if a person hears the concept repeated often enough the person will become curious about it.
You might tell me if your school teaches CT. Are you familiar with CT as Richard Paul writes about it? You indicate that CT as I talk about it is not the CT in your understanding of CT. Are my views on CT a minority view?
Please enlarge the matter about philosophy. I am sorry I failed to catch your pitch but perhaps I am so accustomed to a certain kind of responder I get into a rut.
I applaud your being sharp. I would love to express my opinion on other philosophical issues. I evidently overlooked your question about God/religion. Point me to that place you asked the question and I will try to respond. I am not, however, often inclined to talk religion because I try to stay away from matters that tend to lead into emotional rants.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Confidence in Reason
Coberst, I am a history major. But I do teach at the college level anything that falls into humanities when called upon-a job is a job! 
I actually will teach science and math at the middle school level next year-the bane of having a triple credential means more work for me, they might make me teach social studies too. That will be alot of work.
I understand about not bringing up the topic of religion-I was using that as a response to your first post, confidence in reason. The topic of faith and how it can be an alternative viewpoint to reason and comprehend the world seen and unseen around us. I did not mean for it to be a religious thread, then conflicts do arise.
You started with the pre-Socratic thinkers, I would one day like to see it continued, from Socrates on into the modern time period. Where philosophy started and developed, is a journey in itself. It is sometimes a delight to spend some time with Descartes or Kierkegaard, just to discuss their thoughts, their relevance.
I actually will teach science and math at the middle school level next year-the bane of having a triple credential means more work for me, they might make me teach social studies too. That will be alot of work.
I understand about not bringing up the topic of religion-I was using that as a response to your first post, confidence in reason. The topic of faith and how it can be an alternative viewpoint to reason and comprehend the world seen and unseen around us. I did not mean for it to be a religious thread, then conflicts do arise.
You started with the pre-Socratic thinkers, I would one day like to see it continued, from Socrates on into the modern time period. Where philosophy started and developed, is a journey in itself. It is sometimes a delight to spend some time with Descartes or Kierkegaard, just to discuss their thoughts, their relevance.
Confidence in Reason
Chonsi
I am what I call a September Scholar. I started at mid-life as a self-learner pursuing questions that interested me. I have found that writing short essays help me to understand the holes in my learning so that I can fill them in. As a result I have hundreds of short essays in my computer on all kinds of things. The following is one on Descartes. I may have posted it before and you may have seen it already but I thought it might be a way to start a little dialogue about such matters.
I have a particular grudge against the mind/body dichotomy that Descartes is so much the blame for.
I was educated in engineering but also had some interest in philosophy. My first philosophy course was Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy". I suspect this is an introductory course for most students studying philosophy. Descartes has left Western tradition with a gigantic legacy that only now is this legacy being undermined by cognitive science.
Descartes goes through a sequence of analysis in an effort to find an absolute truth upon which to build his philosophy. He settled on "Cogito, ergo sum". "I think therefore I am". The conclusions of this series of analysis by Descartes have set the course, more or less, of Western philosophy. What are the fateful conclusions derived from the work of Descartes?
"I am, I exist, that is certain. But how often? Just when I think; for it might possibly be the case if I ceased entirely to think, that I should likewise cease altogether to exist...But what then am I? A thing that thinks."
The Folk Theory of Essences
Every kind of thing has an essence that makes it the kind of thing it is.
The way each thing naturally behaves is a consequence of its essence.
Descartes knows he exists because he thinks. Because he exists he has an essence. He assumes nothing else causes his thinking but his essence. Conclusion: thinking must be at least a part of the human essence.
"Just because I know certainly that I exist, and that meanwhile I do not remark that any other thing necessarily pertains to my nature or essence, excepting that I am a thinking thing, I rightly conclude that my essence consists solely in the fact that I am a thinking thing."
"It is certain that this I , is entirely, and absolutely distinct from my body and can exist without it."
To have reached that last conclusion Descartes must assume an additional:
The Folk Theory of Substance and Attributes
A substance is that which exists in itself and does not depend for its existence on any other thing.
Each substance has one and only one primary attribute that defines what its essence is.
The following is what his introspection has made him “seeâ€:
There are two kinds of substance, one bodily and the other mental.
The attribute of bodily substance is extension in space.
The attribute of mental substance is thought.
I am what I call a September Scholar. I started at mid-life as a self-learner pursuing questions that interested me. I have found that writing short essays help me to understand the holes in my learning so that I can fill them in. As a result I have hundreds of short essays in my computer on all kinds of things. The following is one on Descartes. I may have posted it before and you may have seen it already but I thought it might be a way to start a little dialogue about such matters.
I have a particular grudge against the mind/body dichotomy that Descartes is so much the blame for.
I was educated in engineering but also had some interest in philosophy. My first philosophy course was Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy". I suspect this is an introductory course for most students studying philosophy. Descartes has left Western tradition with a gigantic legacy that only now is this legacy being undermined by cognitive science.
Descartes goes through a sequence of analysis in an effort to find an absolute truth upon which to build his philosophy. He settled on "Cogito, ergo sum". "I think therefore I am". The conclusions of this series of analysis by Descartes have set the course, more or less, of Western philosophy. What are the fateful conclusions derived from the work of Descartes?
"I am, I exist, that is certain. But how often? Just when I think; for it might possibly be the case if I ceased entirely to think, that I should likewise cease altogether to exist...But what then am I? A thing that thinks."
The Folk Theory of Essences
Every kind of thing has an essence that makes it the kind of thing it is.
The way each thing naturally behaves is a consequence of its essence.
Descartes knows he exists because he thinks. Because he exists he has an essence. He assumes nothing else causes his thinking but his essence. Conclusion: thinking must be at least a part of the human essence.
"Just because I know certainly that I exist, and that meanwhile I do not remark that any other thing necessarily pertains to my nature or essence, excepting that I am a thinking thing, I rightly conclude that my essence consists solely in the fact that I am a thinking thing."
"It is certain that this I , is entirely, and absolutely distinct from my body and can exist without it."
To have reached that last conclusion Descartes must assume an additional:
The Folk Theory of Substance and Attributes
A substance is that which exists in itself and does not depend for its existence on any other thing.
Each substance has one and only one primary attribute that defines what its essence is.
The following is what his introspection has made him “seeâ€:
There are two kinds of substance, one bodily and the other mental.
The attribute of bodily substance is extension in space.
The attribute of mental substance is thought.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Confidence in Reason
Folk theories are a set of general assumptions made by a group of non-professional people to explain what they perceive and think. It varies from culture to culture.
Descartes proposed a dual system of as an attempt to rationalize all known knowledge at the time.
Doubt→skepticism→belief in one’s existence as a thinking being→
"Cogito, ergo sum".
From the realization that we are a thinking being, we can rationalize and form ideas: concept of God, concept of scientific laws, etc.
The mind and the body are two distinct entities.
Descartes proposed a dual system of as an attempt to rationalize all known knowledge at the time.
Doubt→skepticism→belief in one’s existence as a thinking being→
"Cogito, ergo sum".
From the realization that we are a thinking being, we can rationalize and form ideas: concept of God, concept of scientific laws, etc.
The mind and the body are two distinct entities.
Confidence in Reason
Chonsi
What is reason? What is belief?
What do we do when we reason? I would say as a minimum that to reason is to conceptualize and to draw inferences from that conceptualization. All creatures the tadpole and the human must have this minimum capacity to reason. The tadpole must categorize ‘eat no eat’ and ‘friend no friend’. Categorizing is the first step in conceptualizing and inferring and thus reasoning.
I think that it might be worth while to think of how the most primitive creature might conceptualize. Take a primitive sea creature that has only the ability to perceive light and shadow. That creature has a zone of shadow detection let us say of 5 feet. In this detection zone it can distinguish too big or not too big for eating and decide to get away from the shadow. Perhaps it has another zone of one foot that it can decide friend or foe or eat and not eat. In this zone it must infer to get away or to chase after.
From this we might decide that conception is a structuring process where containers are an important element in conceptualization. A container might be an important element in the imagination of the creature. The creature has the ability to infer based upon a container schema. There is an inner and outer and a border between in and out. The creatures must be able to deal with container schemas and make inferences within this schema.
Also the creature must have some sort of schema for following or predicting the path of something perceived. The creature must be able to infer is the shadow going this way or that way.
So conceptualizing consists of a number of standard forms for organizing the elements of a perception so that the creature can draw inferences. The human has this same capability only greatly more sophisticated. This conception and inference process is the foundation of reasoning.
Where does the human capacity of belief fit into this capacity? This is, in my judgment, the fundamentals of reasoning about matters of fact, matters dealing with perceived input. I think that matters of belief are abstract matters and to go there is a much longer walk but I will try but first I would like your feedback. Is this saying anything relating to what you are looking for?
What is reason? What is belief?
What do we do when we reason? I would say as a minimum that to reason is to conceptualize and to draw inferences from that conceptualization. All creatures the tadpole and the human must have this minimum capacity to reason. The tadpole must categorize ‘eat no eat’ and ‘friend no friend’. Categorizing is the first step in conceptualizing and inferring and thus reasoning.
I think that it might be worth while to think of how the most primitive creature might conceptualize. Take a primitive sea creature that has only the ability to perceive light and shadow. That creature has a zone of shadow detection let us say of 5 feet. In this detection zone it can distinguish too big or not too big for eating and decide to get away from the shadow. Perhaps it has another zone of one foot that it can decide friend or foe or eat and not eat. In this zone it must infer to get away or to chase after.
From this we might decide that conception is a structuring process where containers are an important element in conceptualization. A container might be an important element in the imagination of the creature. The creature has the ability to infer based upon a container schema. There is an inner and outer and a border between in and out. The creatures must be able to deal with container schemas and make inferences within this schema.
Also the creature must have some sort of schema for following or predicting the path of something perceived. The creature must be able to infer is the shadow going this way or that way.
So conceptualizing consists of a number of standard forms for organizing the elements of a perception so that the creature can draw inferences. The human has this same capability only greatly more sophisticated. This conception and inference process is the foundation of reasoning.
Where does the human capacity of belief fit into this capacity? This is, in my judgment, the fundamentals of reasoning about matters of fact, matters dealing with perceived input. I think that matters of belief are abstract matters and to go there is a much longer walk but I will try but first I would like your feedback. Is this saying anything relating to what you are looking for?