What is reason?

[Nooj]

Can someone define reason and rationality for me?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'll take an initial stab. I welcome correction.

Here goes: The thinking process that allows us to appropriately respond to reality.

What is appropriate is that which enables us to live in a flourishing way (thanks Mark). For the most part, we all want the same things on a day-to-day basis and thus we recognize rationality in others.

 

[quatona]

Can someone define reason and rationality for me?

"Reason" and "rationality". (We define words).

The way I tend to use them:

"Rationality" refers to a method: approaching things by means of digital, binary thinking.
"Reason" refers to the attempt of (within a given frame of goals, values etc.) coming to good and useful conclusions.
Rationality is a tool (one tool) of reason.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Can someone define reason and rationality for me?

I like Ayn Rand's concise definition of reason:

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.

As for rationality, that amounts to the application of reason.

The senses, concepts, logic: these are the elements of man’s rational faculty—its start, its form, its method. In essence, “follow reason” means: base knowledge on observation; form concepts according to the actual (measurable) relationships among concretes; use concepts according to the rules of logic (ultimately, the Law of Identity).

As a virtue, it implies that one has achieved excellence in doing so, and that this is something that one ought to value in oneself. I regard rationality as the essential virtue -- the one that exists in all of the others. There are no virtues that fail to require an understanding of our life circumstances.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I would say that both involve being logical but also having opinions based on not only valid and cogent, but sound and strong arguiments (i.e. ones inferences ought to be formally valid but also have true premises). So therefore, implicitally, one must have knowledge of how to form an argument, and also a means of accessing reliable raw data.

Also, ones goals ought to be appropriate (i.e. it is not usually regarded as rational to self harm), and also persued in a logical manner (i.e. don't starve yourself if you intend to relieve your hunger).

 

[AlexBP]

Rational actually means "balanced". If you trace the word back to its Latin origins, you'll see that it comes from the same root as ratio and ration. In other words, to be rational, you have to have the right amount of things in relationship to each other. Obviously this is to be understood as referring to mental and not physical things. A rational person has some emotion, some logic, some artiness, some mysticism, all balanced against each other in a complicated way that nonetheless holds together.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Rational actually means "balanced". If you trace the word back to its Latin origins, you'll see that it comes from the same root as ratio and ration.

Watch out for the etymological flalacy. Words do not always mean nowadays what they meant 1000 years ago. But ty for the reminder though.

In other words, to be rational, you have to have the right amount of things in relationship to each other. Obviously this is to be understood as referring to mental and not physical things. A rational person has some emotion, some logic, some artiness, some mysticism, all balanced against each other in a complicated way that nonetheless holds together.

That sounds like Platonism.

 

[brightlights]

I'll take an initial stab. I welcome correction.

Here goes: The thinking process that allows us to appropriately respond to reality.

What is appropriate is that which enables us to live in a flourishing way (thanks Mark). For the most part, we all want the same things on a day-to-day basis and thus we recognize rationality in others.

I think that this definition has some value, but what about truth? Couldn't you respond to reality in such a way that you flourish, yet have absolutely false beliefs about the world?

Reason is the faculty that enables us to form true beliefs.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I like Ayn Rand's concise definition of reason:

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.

As for rationality, that amounts to the application of reason.

The senses, concepts, logic: these are the elements of man’s rational faculty—its start, its form, its method. In essence, “follow reason” means: base knowledge on observation; form concepts according to the actual (measurable) relationships among concretes; use concepts according to the rules of logic (ultimately, the Law of Identity).

As a virtue, it implies that one has achieved excellence in doing so, and that this is something that one ought to value in oneself. I regard rationality as the essential virtue -- the one that exists in all of the others. There are no virtues that fail to require an understanding of our life circumstances.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think the above definition of reason is fair except I would like more detail as the concept of integrate seems rather vague. When I see it I want to say "integrates into what?" or "How or in what manner is it integrated?". Perhaps I can suggest the term "into a coherent process of thought capable of being communicated to and understood by others." ." be added to the end of the sentence?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Can someone define reason and rationality for me?

By "rationality" do you mean people's psyches or do you mean the enterprise?

With respect to the enterprise, I would define rationality as the belief that things have a cause (they are not random) and that an adequate explanation for such things can be found in nature (the supernatural need not be considered).

Reason is a tool for arriving at those natural explanations of what causes things.

If you are talking about people's psyches, I don't have a definition to offer.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think the above definition of reason is fair except I would like more detail as the concept of integrate seems rather vague. When I see it I want to say "integrates into what?"

A system of concepts that function as a whole -- as an understanding.

You are trying to integrate ideas about "what reason is" in this thread.

Perhaps I can suggest the term "into a coherent process of thought capable of being communicated to and understood by others." ." be added to the end of the sentence?

I have no objection.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think that this definition has some value, but what about truth? Couldn't you respond to reality in such a way that you flourish, yet have absolutely false beliefs about the world?

Reason is the faculty that enables us to form true beliefs.

I'd like to think that reason leads us to the truth or true beliefs. However, it seems that that may be a side effect that bias convinces us is the main effect. That is, we have the age of reason, the age of enlightenment, and we begin to believe that we have discovered the truth.

So, I think reason leads us to respond to reality so that we flourish that most of the time leads us to the truth ... but not necessarily.

The fear of snakes is a rational one. But not all snakes are dangerous. We have a rational falsehood that allows us to flourish because we don't die of snake bites.

When the first human begins to study snakes, to understand their 'true' nature, his fellow human beings may consider him irrational. Yet it is his rationality that determines that the rest of us are making a category error (right terminology?). In time if he survives, we may acknowledge that he is right; some snakes are dangerous others are not. Yet if we find ourselves without interest or time to learn which is which, isn't it rational to still avoid snakes? Yes, though this time the 'reason' is that "I am too ignorant. My guesses about snakes are not to be trusted. Therefore, I will avoid them all."

This final statement is indeed true and reason led us there. However before our intrepid scientist came along, isn't the original stance also reasonable?

 

[HarryCovert]

Reason is the thought process that proceeds from the assumption that logic is true.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Reason is the thought process that proceeds from the assumption that logic is true.

Disagree. I would 'from the experience that the use of logic produces practical results.'

 

[HarryCovert]

Disagree. I would 'from the experience that the use of logic produces practical results.'

We have to assume that logic is true because the preponderance of the evidence supports that conclusion, but we can only attempt to prove logic is true by using logic.

 

[sandwiches]

I like Ayn Rand's concise definition of reason:

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.

This matches almost 100% with my definition:
The ability to process stimuli provided by our senses.

 

[sandwiches]

Reason is the thought process that proceeds from the assumption that logic is true.

To be able to assume that logic is true, you must first use your reason to understand it and process it. Reason precedes logic.

 

[HarryCovert]

This matches almost 100% with my definition:
The ability to process stimuli provided by our senses.

We can process stimuli without using logic. We can have an emotional response or an intuitive one. Is the logical one to be preferred?

 

[sandwiches]

We can process stimuli without using logic. We can have an emotional response or an intuitive one. Is the logical one to be preferred?

The answer is in your question.

I prefer responses and conclusions that are demonstrably useful to the extent of predictive and utilitarian power.

 

[Tinker Grey]

To be able to assume that logic is true, you must first use your reason to understand it and process it. Reason precludes logic.

Precludes or precedes?