A rule of Wisdom

[ArcaneLifeforceMysteria]

The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason.

 

[The Nihilist]

I don't trust reason. It's too new, too untested. Passions and instinct have preserved our race thus far, and reason dulls them. I say we listen to reason, but not necessarily that we obey it.

 

[stan1980]

I don't trust reason. It's too new, too untested. Passions and instinct have preserved our race thus far, and reason dulls them. I say we listen to reason, but not necessarily that we obey it.

I'm struggling to agree with this. I think we supress a lot of our animal urges because of reason. For instance, we tame our aggressiveness, our temptation to fight and murder, all in the name of reason. Civilisation wouldn't be what it is without reason.

 

[The Nihilist]

I'm struggling to agree with this. I think we supress a lot of our animal urges because of reason. For instance, we tame our aggressiveness, our temptation to fight and murder, all in the name of reason. Civilisation wouldn't be what it is without reason.

Aggression, fighting, and murder have long, established traditions of making a race strong and helping it survive. Civilization is somewhat more limited in its history

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Instinct should not be locked up, but tamed and used by logic.

For instance, in the following nerdy metaphor, When I play Halo 3 on the internet, I use logic to decide what guns I need, where to position myself, give info to my teammates, etc., but when I meet an enemy I let instinct take over and whip out a sniper rifle, line my sights and nail my opponent in the head, and then turn around and stick another opponent with a grenade before I die in a hail of bullets.

More seriously, if our race were to live together in a logical fashion, technology would skyrocket even faster than it is now and so would our race as a whole. I would be willing to bet my soul that a logical (not necessarily pacifist) society would own a more primitive instinctive society in every way shape and form.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason.

Agreed! Reason is the only thing that can provide you with a reality-check. Passions are needed for a successful life as well, but these unruly forces will tear you apart and lead you into destruction without reason as a guide and organizing influence. Only reason allows one to be the master of one's passions, instead of being mastered by them.

Reason should be the commander-in-chief of one's life. It is only through reason that one can be the captain of one's own ship.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Agreed! Reason is the only thing that can provide you with a reality-check. Passions are needed for a successful life as well, but these unruly forces will tear you apart and lead you into destruction without reason as a guide and organizing influence. Only reason allows one to be the master of one's passions, instead of being mastered by them.

Reason should be the commander-in-chief of one's life. It is only through reason that one can be the captain of one's own ship.

Although I value reason very high myself, I am not sure I entirely agree with you here, Mark.
I´ll try to keep in your analogy for making my objection: To be the captain of one´s own ship is great and all, but it´s of no use if you don´t even know where you want to sail.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Although I value reason very high myself, I am not sure I entirely agree with you here, Mark.
I´ll try to keep in your analogy for making my objection: To be the captain of one´s own ship is great and all, but it´s of no use if you don´t even know where you want to sail.

I agree with you. Passions, as I said, are needed. Passions can suggest destinations. And passions, usually existing in multiples, will suggest several different destinations.

You still need reason to judge those destinations for their worthiness, and to select one to stick with. You'll also need reason to change course when a passion is no longer leading you somewhere it is healthy to go.

When I say that reason should be in charge, I do not mean that one should live a passionless Stoic (or Vulcan) existence. I am saying that passions should not have the final say on where one is to travel. Passions may suggest, but should not rule.

Let me be clear that I don't believe in a reason-passion dichtomy, where one must chose one and discard the other. In life, we need a partnership of reason and passion, where each fills its proper role, and the role of reason involves having a final say.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

I agree with you. Passions, as I said, are needed. Passions can suggest destinations. And passions, usually existing in multiples, will suggest several different destinations.

You still need reason to judge those destinations for their worthiness, and to select one to stick with. You'll also need reason to change course when a passion is no longer leading you somewhere it is healthy to go.

When I say that reason should be in charge, I do not mean that one should live a passionless Stoic (or Vulcan) existence. I am saying that passions should not have the final say on where one is to travel. Passions may suggest, but should not rule.

Let me be clear that I don't believe in a reason-passion dichtomy, where one must chose one and discard the other. In life, we need a partnership of reason and passion, where each fills its proper role, and the role of reason involves having a final say.

I didn´t understand you to say that.
However, I am not necessarily thinking of "passions" as the only alternative to reason. I find that a bit confusing, but maybe it´s but a language thing.

What I am trying to say is that reason is just a method to determine how to get from A to B. It is completely useless if not applied within a given frame: The question why to get from A to B. There may be reasons for that, but these reasons again need a frame in which they make sense. IOW: You need a reason (or the application of reason) for something, and this what you need and use it for is ultimately not determinable by reason.
What is the basis for considering the "worthiness of a destination"?
Which aim is more reasonable - Haiti or the Maledives?
I say your desires are actually the basis for the rational evaluations where to travel. Hence I´d consider them more important and more dominant.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I didn´t understand you to say that.
However, I am not necessarily thinking of "passions" as the only alternative to reason. I find that a bit confusing, but maybe it´s but a language thing.

What I am trying to say is that reason is just a method to determine how to get from A to B. It is completely useless if not applied within a given frame: The question why to get from A to B. There may be reasons for that, but these reasons again need a frame in which they make sense. IOW: You need a reason (or the application of reason) for something, and this what you need and use it for is ultimately not determinable by reason.
What is the basis for considering the "worthiness of a destination"?
Which aim is more reasonable - Haiti or the Maledives?
I say your desires are actually the basis for the rational evaluations where to travel. Hence I´d consider them more important and more dominant.

I feel bad for saying this, because it's kind of bsing you, but if you want to go somewhere, letting where you want to go more decide for you is a logical reason in and of itself; "I don't have a major reason to go to either place, so I'll just go to the one I find more attractive" follows a logical path of thinking

 

[Eudaimonist]

What I am trying to say is that reason is just a method to determine how to get from A to B.

Ah, I disagree with that model of reason. I think that reason can also judge which Bs are worthy of pursuit, and rational understanding can also stoke desires by recognizing the desirability of possible new desires.

So reason is not just "the slave of the passions" as Enlightenment thinkers such as David Hume thought.

What is the basis for considering the "worthiness of a destination"?

Your well-being, which may involve passions and understandings you don't even have yet. Your notion of what is good for you is an evolving one.

I say your desires are actually the basis for the rational evaluations where to travel. Hence I´d consider them more important and more dominant.

I can see why you think that, and I do grant all along that passions are an important source of suggestions for goals. But I maintain that they should not be dominant in the sense of always having the final say in your actions.

Let me ask you this. If two of your passions conflict about courses of action, which one should you choose, and how do you make the choice?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

I feel bad for saying this, because it's kind of bsing you, but if you want to go somewhere, letting where you want to go more decide for you is a logical reason in and of itself; "I don't have a major reason to go to either place, so I'll just go to the one I find more attractive" follows a logical path of thinking

Please enlighten me on the logical deduction you see there.

 

[quatona]

Ah, I disagree with that model of reason. I think that reason can also judge which Bs are worthy of pursuit,

Well, since it´s not like everyone goes for the same destination for holidays, I think there is something else than reason at the very bottom of our goals.

and rational understanding can also stoke desires by recognizing the desirability of possible new desires.

Agreed.

So reason is not just "the slave of the passions" as Enlightenment thinkers such as David Hume thought.

Since that´s not my position I can easily agree with you here.
My position is that - once I accept the dichotomy of "reason vs. passion" - I see reason as a great instrument of determining
a. that which is
b. how to change that which is into that which I desire.
I don´t see reason as determining that which I desire.
You have introduced ideas like "healthy" and "my well-being" for rationally determined goals, but to me that appears to do away with the distinction "reason vs. desire (passion)" altogether.
If "I don´t like garlic, therefore I won´t eat it" qualifies as a result of reason, there isn´t much left but reason, and I wouldn´t even know how to distinguish between "passion and desire". Same goes for "Smoking is unhealthy. I want to be healthy, therefore I won´t smoke". This is indeed a logical deduction, yet the underlying goal to be healthy is not determined by reason.
All I am disputing is a superiourity or ultimately determining capability of reason. Once I am asked to think in these terms I´d rather suggest that desires are the determining factors (but I wouldn´t insist on it).

Your well-being, which may involve passions and understandings you don't even have yet. Your notion of what is good for you is an evolving one.

Agreed. Yet, ultimately it leaves me with underlying maximes that defy rational deduction.

I can see why you think that, and I do grant all along that passions are an important source of suggestions for goals. But I maintain that they should not be dominant in the sense of always having the final say in your actions.

Well, if travelling to China instead of Australia because I find it more interesting and desirable qualifies as a decision based on reason, there isn´t much to discuss.

Let me ask you this. If two of your passions conflict about courses of action, which one should you choose, and how do you make the choice?

Not to evade the question, but let me in return ask you this: If two options of courses of action conflict in that there are good reasons to do either as well as good reasons against either (which I find to be the case most of the time), how do you make the choice?

To answer your question: I observe myself doing that for which I have a greater passion. (In which I still have problems with the term "passion", but I am working from the assumption that you use it as a signifier for all those drives that are not reason).

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Accidental Double Post

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Not to evade the question, but let me in return ask you this: If two options of courses of action conflict in that there are good reasons to do either as well as good reasons against either (which I find to be the case most of the time), how do you make the choice?

The thing that I'm trying to get at here (and I believe Eudaimonist is along the same lines) is that your passion IS a reason, weighed in by logical analysis

 

[quatona]

The thing that I'm trying to get at here (and I believe Eudaimonist is along the same lines) is that your passion IS a reason, weighed in by logical analysis

And the thing I have already tried to point out in response to Mark is:
If you include passions into your concept of reason (while actually having started from the dichotomy "reason vs. passion") there isn´t anything left to distinguish reason from.

The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason.

becomes a meaningless maxime. Reason - as opposed to what?

On another note I am sensing a false equivocation here: "Reason" and "a reason" are two completely different concepts despite sharing the same word.

 

[keith99]

I don't trust reason. It's too new, too untested. Passions and instinct have preserved our race thus far, and reason dulls them. I say we listen to reason, but not necessarily that we obey it.

Reason or logic if you will operates just as well on false assumptions as on true ones. Allowing yourself to blindly be rules by reason can lead to blindly following those false assumptions.

Allowing either logic or emotion to rule your actions has pitfalls. At times even both can agree on a wrong action. But following just one has far more chance of leading to what hindsight will show to be foolish.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

And the thing I have already tried to point out in response to Mark is:
If you include passions into your concept of reason (while actually having started from the dichotomy "reason vs. passion") there isn´t anything left to distinguish reason from.

I fail to see how, logic is the process of making a decision through weighing and balancing of reasons, which passion is one of.

Reason or logic if you will operates just as well on false assumptions as on true ones. Allowing yourself to blindly be rules by reason can lead to blindly following those false assumptions.

Allowing either logic or emotion to rule your actions has pitfalls. At times even both can agree on a wrong action. But following just one has far more chance of leading to what hindsight will show to be foolish.

Logic is also the tool used to get one out of such predicaments and show such false assumptions (by the way, if it's an assumption, then you don't know, and should logically wait until you do know before you make a decision) for what they really are.

Real hardcore logic does not make mistakes, it just isn't all knowing.

 

[quatona]

I fail to see how, logic is the process of making a decision through weighing and balancing of reasons, which passion is one of.

Agreed, but what has that to do with anything I said? The "rule of wisdom" isn´t making a statement about logic but about reason (and I am responding accordingly).
So why change the horses midstream?
Of course you are free to formulate a different maxime (like: postulating logic for a sovereign), but that would be a different discussion.

In regards to the maxime in the OP and Mark´s and your definition of reason my question stands: Reason - as opposed to what?

 

[brightlights]

The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason.

According to David Hume reason is totally inable to rule anything. Passions rule us, reason simply directs our passions. What do you think?