Confidence in reason

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Confidence in reason

A popular adage goes something like this “I cannot argue down a conviction that has not been argued up.” It is impossible for me to use reason to convince someone who is without confidence in reason that they should have confidence in reason.

An adult without confidence in reason must start the effort to study reason before they can gain a confidence in reason. Perhaps that is impossible also. Perhaps it is the case that an adult without a confidence in reason will never have confidence in reason.

I suspect that 95% of the adults in the US have no confidence in reason and if my logic is correct they never will have that confidence. If that does not depress 5% of the population then nothing will. Perhaps it will delight the other 95%.

Further thought leads me to modify that statement. The 95% without confidence in reason do in fact have some confidence in reason. They do recognize that as an instrument to gain a goal reason is necessary.

What can we say about the 95% and reason? I guess we can say that they often have confidence in reason but that confidence is restricted to a limited aspect of life.

Is a person capable of having confidence in reason when that person is almost completely ignorant of the nature of reasoning?

2

Goethe has the answer:

(a portion taken from the goethe article on wikipedia)

Influence

Goethe’s influence was dramatic because he understood that there was a transition in European sensibilities, an increasing focus on sense, the indescribable, and the emotional. This is not to say that he was emotionalistic or excessive; on the contrary, he lauded personal restraint and felt that excess was a disease: “There is nothing worse than imagination without taste”. He argued in his scientific works that a “formative impulse”, which he said is operative in every organism, causes an organism to form itself according to its own distinct laws, and therefore rational laws or fiats could not be imposed at all from a higher, transcendent sphere; this placed him in direct opposition to those who attempted to form “enlightened” monarchies based on “rational” laws by, for example, Joseph II of Austria or, the subsequent Emperor of the French, Napoleon I. A quotation from his Scientific Studies will suffice:

“We conceive of the individual animal as a small world, existing for its own sake, by its own means. Every creature is its own reason to be. All its parts have a direct effect on one another, a relationship to one another, thereby constantly renewing the circle of life; thus we are justified in considering every animal physiologically perfect. Viewed from within, no part of the animal is a useless or arbitrary product of the formative impulse (as so often thought). Externally, some parts may seem useless because the inner coherence of the animal nature has given them this form without regard to outer circumstance. Thus…[not] the question, What are they for? but rather, Where do they come from?:” – Suhrkamp ed., vol 12, p. 121; trans. Douglas Miller, Scientific Studies

Now that you’ve read that:

Some people are capable of being converted, and others will hopelessly be lost because of 1) time constraints and 2) Disinterest 3) Instinct (fear od death i.e. religion) 4) Defect in biology (brain structures not well formed or suited to higher reasoning).

In modern society I don’t think people appreciate the amount of time it takes to learn something to the depth and subtlety necessary, they get a kind of crude coarse understanding of many things, even in the post secondary schools like college and university.

3

I think you are correct. Our educational system has generally never taught us anything about how to think and about the art and science of CT (Critical Thinking). It appears to me that few people know anything about the nature of reasoning unless they took some philosophy in college. That is why every adult must seriously consider taking the effort to learn CT.

4

I totally agree with the both you. The lack of CT causes major problems in society. I value reason,logic with realism as the highest governing power of my actions. But, even a few short works about reasoning should be taught in schools. I am lucky, because i had a few courses of philosophy and thinking. Arguments between people could be resolved much more easily and peacefully if they were to use CT.

5

’

6

Well to take it a bit further, i say that the world needs a rationalization. If you were an alien, and you’d take a closer look at the planet you’d be stunned. For exampe, people in the US, China,or Britain or obessed, and african kids have nothing to eat. European parents have 1-2 children, which they can well feed and raise, but in India a family with 8 kids is usual. But they don’t have enough money for even 1. We spend a lot of money on military projects but space explorational or social or enviromental funds are decreasing. People, leaders especially, need to be rational and all of humanity could be better. We need to oppress our base instincts to be better! Open-minded and predictive thinking could literally save lives.

7

right. disarm and fund the schools…

what’s that?

[size=25]allah allah ackbar![/size]

-Imp

8

’

9

Absolute confidence in reason is no different from the blind faith of the religious in a god.

10

There is a difference of utmost importance with regards to rationality and blind faith (or irrationality), rationality is definitely best and irrationality is most detrimental by nature and definition.

11

Actually irrationality is unavoidable, anything in which your knowledge is imperfect is necessarily irrational. (incongruent with) what is true.

12

’

13

Rationalty is a process; the knowledge about how this process functions is important but knowledge about the object under consideration has no affect upon the process. Judgment is using the process of rationality together with knowledge to determine the better conclusion.

14

It’s often rational to rely more on experience, intuïtion and feeling than on reason to make decisions. That is, I think, because situations are often to complex and we lack the time to use reason properly (or it would take to much time relative to the importance of the decision). Because of the more holistic approach, intuïtion and feeling often result in better decisions in these situations. I think these 95% are on to something.

15

I suspect my trying to present a rational argument against your position would be a waste of time.

16

Not at all. I think I provided a rational argument as to why reason is not allways, or better, is often not the best instrument at our disposal to take decisions. Go ahead.

17

Except for the empirical observation that reason consistently provides valid and useful results while theism doesn’t.

18

:slight_smile: You got it!

19

Both theology and rationality extend from the same absurdism which originates from the constructed foundation of “Humanism”.

Make no mistake about it.

20

Please, clarify.