Essay: Our Need For Reason

I can’t remember what I had for breakfast on Saturday. Memory doesn’t work that way. If I try to remember what I had for breakfast, I usually start by listing recognizable breakfast foods, or in my case, restaurants that serve breakfast, until I create an association that instantiates a recall.

Nor can I remember the emotions I had the first time I danced socially at Dick Chaplin Studios when I was seven years old and dancing with a girl for the first time. Memory doesn’t work that way either. I can remember vaguely how I felt in those days but not how I felt that particular afternoon, though I’m sure I must have been nauseated, this is only a supposition.

Memory is not the only thing that is untrustworthy and unreliable. Our senses fail us also. Optical, aural … even olfactory illusions abound. They make us believe something that is often not true. They aren’t just in those spiffy-if-a-litte-ridiculous magic-eye pictures, but they occur in the natural world, too. Mirages and conundrums of light and heat and air and water present their mysteries to us.

And thus we cannot trust our ability to see and hear and feel and remember the world around us. Our senses challenged by not only illusion but haphazardness, our memories impaired not only by time and intensity but by emotion and suggestibility. We are after all, human animals.

Our conscious mind or perhaps more aptly, our functional brain, deals with these impairments in quite incredible ways. How? It makes stuff up. It fills in the blank. It completes the picture. It associates. As we grow up, we learn about the many illusions and the many holes being filled in. We learn not to trust our senses. We learn that our memory is imperfect. And unless we suffer delusionally or narcissistically in our infallibility, we learn to doubt.

Doubting ourselves increases our fear of the world. The uncertainty created by our doubts in our sensing the world and remembering what we sensed feeds into our emotional reaction to the world around us. Imagine early man, evolving, we were selecting for higher capacities for information processing. Selection increased our ability to process and describe and to be aware of our experience. As the awareness of our weaknesses increased, we needed an adaptive way to manage fear in order to be effective. Here I would like to suggest that an ability to reason would be a positive adaptation that would be a powerful selective force. Why? Because reason allows for abstractions and abstractions allow for knowledge that is independent of sensation and memory. Abstractions such as perfect equilateral triangles of Pythagorus’s imagination need nothing in the real world to instantiate them. They are pure and in them we can feel perfectly confident. We can dispel all doubts about them through mathematical rigor and manipulation of argument ad infinitum.

Reason and hence Rationalism instills us with confidence where Empiricism and our senses cries for mother to wrap her arms around us and make everything okay.

I’ve always wanted to believe that the Empiricists were right and that Knowledge only comes from our senses. It just so happens that our particular version of Empirical Truth is so imperfect and shot through with holes it makes us cringe! So when the Rationalist comes along arguing that Reason is the source of Knowledge (which amounts to make-believe!), we are compelled by their argument’s power to comfort our unconscious minds.

I really have nothing intelligent to say about evolution, to be sure. It is a complicated topic. I can lay that part of the argument aside and still be left with something interesting to say about Rationalism based on this line of thinking: If nothing else, Rationalism inserts itself warmly into a cognitive frame perturbed by our lack of confidence in our ability to sense the world accurately.

I don’t understand how our senses fail us; as you said we are human animals, would we have survived or become what we are if our senses were in some way inadequate? And what and where are these mirages and mysteries you speak of, are they something which trouble you on a day to day basis or are they something peculiar which just occur once in awhile?
It’s not the exception which defines the rule but the norm, and it seems that it is only in exceptional cases where our sense falter but they are normally reliable, so i see no reason to discard trust in their abilities.

Yeah, I also think you’ve got it backward, Izmo. Our senses do not fail us, it’s when we want to make something more out of it via language, logic, systemizing, measuring, thinking…, that things get skewed. And yes, empirism doesn’t give us absolute certainty, but it does tell us something about the world, rationality doesn’t necessarily. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use reason thought.

Thanks for your reply.

I don’t want to suggest that our senses are inadequate when in fact they are quite extraordinary. But if we only had our sense, and no ability to reason, we would walk towards a desert mirage every time we saw one, rather than learning it is just a mirage.

Yes, and I’m not suggesting we discard anything. I’m reflecting on is the gap that reason fills, why it would fill it, and why that makes us comfortable. The gap, as I said, is based on an uncertainty in our senses. (Perhaps I overstated my case for dramatic effect.) The uncertainty is nothing in the extreme, but even a small gap is enough to have caused us to evolve a capacity to reason.

Excellent reply, thanks. I agree but would further argue that using logic, measuring, et. al. provides a first-order clarity to what is sensed without which we would have serious difficulties. So using reason requires virtue. You have to use enough reason to filter out the noise that is inherent in having imperfect faculties, so you don’t go chasing off after lagoons in the sand. But you’re correct in saying that problems arise when we go wild with it and start making up ghosts, goblins, and the like.
Please tell me more about how you think using language and thinking goes awry, because I can tell you were thinking of something more.

It’s funny that every time there is a discusson on reason or logic it is usually filled with the biasness of the speaker that there is only one right way of thinking, acting, and believing where anything else is just unacceptable.

We truly live in a PC world where there is a emerging group of people who would have everyone else think, act, and behave in one single manner where anything contrary is perceived as needing to be eradicated completely.

What happens when there is a narrow single manner defined as to how everybody should think, act, and believe?

It almost seems like these same people believe in one single narrow defined destination for everybody almost in a metanarrative belief centering around a absurd faith like destiny.

Strictly speaking, I think almost every use of language, logic and thinking skews things, a little or a lot. But this is a trivial point because we can’t do without them. Language, and thinking, is not possible without abstractions. It’s how you use language and think, or how serious you take the results, that makes all the difference.

You can start from the world and experience, abstract from there, and see it for what it is, a useful tool. This maybe won’t give you the certainty you feel you need. Or you can take abstract concepts as real and absolute starting points, and deduce entire systems from them to fulfill a need for certainty. This is what you could call thinking gone awry.

Of course it’s not that simple IRL, as we generally grow up and live in a world now, that is abstracted and systemised. Moral principles for example can be very real, in sense that they live in the minds of people and are part of an organised society. There will be real consequences if you don’t follow them.

What do we know for sure?
Every word and/or symbol is but

a metaphor-
for what we “think” is out

there.
Symbols have all been agreed

to and accepted. We subjectively

accept the symbols. It is a

pretty day is a arbitrary

statement. Tree is a symbol that

conjures different images. Green

is another facsimili. God is

another word of epistimilogical

attempt.

The only thing that is true; is

the experience itself. And as

with any experience they can not

be put into words. We all

experience the truth but we will

never describe it.