reason is dealt with as some sort of abstract power. and by those who favor it as infallible, required for all judgements of teh understanding. well ofcourse people will find faults with this. and if they’re good with words, elucidate it convincingly.
but i contend that if we take the view of reason involved in decisions and so on, exactly as one would at first think of it, as simply having a reason (or many) for a judgement, then reason should always be involved. the more accurately and profoundly the better.
and if there are judgements for which ‘reason’ should be excluded, there will most certainly be reasons for thinking so. told or not.
and it is only a hastiness that should be avoided that ever leaves reason out. completely. in a philosophy.
i guess this is my ‘thing’ against the esoteric crap that sometimes masquerades as philosophy.
you might think, ‘well, its obvious isn’t it?’ …but i even have professors who go off the occult deep end, as if it was a proper place for a professor to be. and certainly its more common among ‘you’.
bah, i’m drunk.
Though, I think I do not quite understand what it is you contend about reason on account of I’m thick, I’d like to say that philosophy should have done away with that word and relegated it to psychology instead. Hitler had a reason, Bush is using it right now, there is reason for the nagasaki bomb, there is a reason for exploding to smithereens the twin towers, and Mother Theresa had a reason for picking up half-dead people from the gutters.
you’re right… you are thick.
but about everything else… you’re wrong.
CLEARLY there are more reasons against some things than reasons for. these all need to be recognized. and CLEARLY some reasons are not worthy reasons.
do you actually need an example?
fine. then hitler killing jews because they are the cause of all germany’s problems is NOT ONLY a faulty reason, it is a reason with more reasons to the contrary.
Could you define your use of the word “reason”? Because you seem to imply, or not-so-seem to imply, that reason must be connected with value-judgement. My definition of reason is :
" The basis or motive for an action, a decision, or a conviction. "
So, where in this definition is a value laden word?
Are you conflating reason with value? This is laughable.
i defined reason in my first post. it was/is clear.
here it is again: “reason involved in decisions and so on, exactly as one would at first think of it, as simply having a reason (or many) for a judgement” …a judgement of the understanding.
and yes, all judgements, value judgements. if you put value in something, you will have a reason, that is obvious. if you don’t think you do, then you don’t know the reason… and it is a sign of your not knowing yourself.
by the way, what is laughable?
I suppose you are advocating the “use” of “reason” in a moralistic way. I was thinking more of analytical, logical, a description of thinking. But, you seem to want to limit “reason” to morality. Fine. As long as you understand that this IS NOT THE ONLY USE of reason.
marie, you betray your stupidity.
yes, thats my definition of reason… exactly and clearly all it is. just what someone who hasn’t had their conception of it muddied while trudging through the ways in which different writers deal with it.
so unless you have a REASON why you think my definition lacks, then whatever.
furthermore, i have NO IDEA what you’re talking about with morality.
i haven’t mentioned morality. and i never said what you think i said. who knows what you’re thinking.
a logical, analytical blah blah, thats exactly what i mean. i said my idea of the use of reason applies to everything. so morality too… although i definately didn’t say only that… where you got that from is beyond me.
marie, you betray your stupidity.
yes, thats my definition of reason… exactly and clearly all it is. just what someone who hasn’t had their conception of it muddied while trudging through the ways in which different writers deal with it.
so unless you have a REASON why you think my definition lacks, then whatever.
furthermore, i have NO IDEA what you’re talking about with morality.
i haven’t mentioned morality. and i never said what you think i said. who knows what you’re thinking.
a logical, analytical blah blah, thats exactly what i mean. i said my idea of the use of reason applies to everything. so morality too… although i definately didn’t say only that… where you got that from is beyond me.
Your attaching “not worthy reasons” to your explanation is a way of moralizing. You even give an example above. Reason is reason is reason. Either you’re confused or you’re confused. Take your pick.
Describing HOW you use reason is NOT a definition of the word. Not the same thing.
If you know logic, you wouldn’t even attach “worthy” to reason. Judging reason based on value judgment is confused.
Well I thought this was the consensus in analytic philosophy these days…
in one form or another…
I’d take it a step further (or not, it’s hard to tell) and say that reason as a reality-tracking faculty is a myth, and that there is only reason as a description of a process of justifying useful positions and descriptions, in such a way that most others in a similar, free, and open speech community would agree, for their present purposes.
and that true and useful are much the same thing.
it, itself, is a useful attitude to knowledge because it means that endless and unresolvable debates about the nature or existence and reality can be set aside in the interests of more useful discussions about, well, useful things… also closes a lot of pointless epistemological problems…
of course that is an old position, well a good hundred or so years old…
why don’t you attach ‘not worthy’ to the context of our example. there is no moralizing about it what-so-ever. you think it is moralizing I HAVE NO IDEA WHY.
not worthy = true or false and in varying degrees of both… you want the most accurate profound reason (as already I said in my first post). and if theres ones moreso on the contrary… all that needs to be taken into acount (again, as i already said)
Okay, so this is YOUR own reason. Now, someone comes along and says “I like that very same picture that Monooq likes because the colors remind me of autumn.”
Totally different from your reason, but equally valid to say. So, Monooq is reminded of spring, the other person is reminded of autumn. Both are using “reason”.
as long as “reason” is understood as a process of comming to useful conclusions from a specific perspective for a specific purpose then that’s fine.
its only if “reason” is seen as reality tracking that that is a problem… and monooq’s example is good one for showing how “reality” is an unuseful concept re:reason. what could possibly be the “intrinsic nature of reality” of someones impression of a painting?
Exactly. In my first post, I gave you examples of how reason is used. And your answer was "you’re right… you are thick. but about everything else… you’re wrong. " There should not have been disagreement between what you are saying and what I am saying. So, tell me how was I wrong in my previous post, when now you are saying people are allowed different conclusions. Have you now switched your position, or you are still confused?
because people are allowed different conclusions, but some are more right than others. especially in judgements of the understanding. and this is even possible, as i have shown, in judgements of value.
i thought this’d be clear.
But you won’t admit there is moralizing in this view, no? “Some are more right than others.” So, this phrase is devoid of any moralizing whatsoever? I am not saying you are wrong in saying this—what I want you to admit is in your own conception of “reasoning”, you favor a moral view of reasoning. Correct?
no marie, there is no moralizing whatsoever here.
the way i’m judging what is true and false in evaluating reasons has nothing to do with morality at all. it has to do with how accurate a read teh person had on himself while making coming up with his reasons, and how accurate his reasons reflect whats likely to happen, or has happened in the world.
no morality.