In defense of reason

I think we may have to start by a definition that we can all agree on

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information

It has never occurred to me that it would be necessary to defend it until I met IB and Malcolm G.  He writes in a comment on IB’s post, I will quote him entirely, that

IB, it’s so interesting that we often agree with each other even though I’m an atheist and an anarchist to boot. There are so many important areas of our life where reason is unable to help us. Reason for example, and I think you will agree with this, cannot help us choose between fundamental values just as reason cannot help us decide which is the best play writer, Shakespeare or Sophocles. We simply have no way to objectively compare a life lived according to the Sermon on the Mount to a life lived according to the Bushido code of the Samurai.

Furthermore, we live in a society run by moral rules and traditions which have evolved over time, with those groups surviving which had the most successful rules and traditions. For example, some groups accidentally developed a favorable tradition which we now call private property. These groups were very successful but the groups themselves have long since forgotten why they were successful, if they ever knew it in the first place. So we owe much of what we have achieved to a moral tradition which was never rationally designed nor indeed, intentionally created. Maybe faith in moral traditions is nature’s way of putting obstacles in the way of naive rationalists bent on replacing successful rules they have not designed with unsuccessful rules which they have?

In the first instance, the only thing, if anything differentiates us from the brutes is reason. Anyone who thinks that we can dispense with reason should go live with the brutes.

If reason can’t help us in choosing between fundamental values, whatever these are, what can?

I know he and many others will be quick to respond reason cannot help us on matter of taste. If reason is a way of making sense of things, then it is a guide in matters of taste.

And why would reason not help us arbitrate on who is the best playwright? where we expect each one to give a reason for their preference?

Isn’t all experience subjective? So that the only way we can compare lives is subjectively?

Why do we follow the tradition? Is it not because it comports with our reason? We have stopped, generally, from burning people at the stake for heresy because we have reasoned it was a stupid thing to do? Haven’t we generally stopped burning witches because we have reasoned it was really backward and inhuman and that there never were any witches to begin with?

I find people who disparage reason while also claiming maintaining they are reasonable and rational strange and bordering on the insane. I can excuse IB. Her username is insanity- that is, in her case the ship has sailed and their no help. For others, not so fast.

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

14 thoughts on “In defense of reason

  1. ladysighs says:

    How many times have I said, “Give me one good reason.”
    And how many many many times have I received a bit of poppycock! 😦

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “Ours is not to reason why there are so many in the world without reason.” Babe Ruth, circa 1923


  3. I haven’t read IB’s post. My comment is based on what you quoted, and about Malcolm’s most recent post “Love life more than the meaning of it”, which came across my reader yesterday. IB posts on his blog frequently, and did on that one as well. She was praising him for his post. It is bewildering to me that he, a supposed atheist, apparently hasn’t grasped the understanding of the term “reason.”

    The comments that followed on his post, like “all you need is love”, amplified the lack of understanding about their motives. In other words, fMRI studies show that seemingly unselfish acts towards others benefits the individual, even if it’s only on a neurochemcial level. The same parts of the brain associated with reward, such as food and sex, light up when doing acts of kindness. So his comment about “do-gooders” loving humanity (the well being of the collective and the environment) more than the individual is moot.

    You wrote:

    “And why would reason not help us arbitrate on who is the best playwright?”

    Exactly, or even choosing a partner because “love is blind”, as the neurological studies show. People can and do make poor decisions because love, a.k.a. attachment or bonding, floods us with reward chemicals, while deactivating neural circuity associated with critical social assessment. I realize I’ve mentioned this previously, but I’m reiterating it again because, as I mentioned, people seem to not understand their motives, and without logical thinking, they won’t, which renders them vulnerable to their own biochemistry.

    When Malcolm talks about “favorable traditions” that supposedly helped us survive, he states: “some groups accidentally developed a favorable tradition which we now call private property. These groups were very successful but the groups themselves have long since forgotten why they were successful, if they ever knew it in the first place.

    it strikes me odd that he seems relatively clueless about the enormous suffering, repression and oppression that came about when women became the private property of men — domestic slaves and breeders, and the private property owners also owned other slaves to further maintain the other property, i.e., land, they own. Yes, indeed, they were successful, and at the expense of others.

    Mak, I’m glad you made a post, highlighting his comments. After reading his post yesterday, it only served to remind me of the idiocracy America has become.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. when I see someone claim that reason doesn’t guide us, all I see is someone who wants to validate their ideas that are unreasonable aka the claim that all opinions are equal and how dare someone show that someone is wrong. It’s the special snowflakes again.

    Liked by 2 people

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s