BF2S Forums The happy death of reason

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I'm pretty sure reason has a precise definition, such as the one provided by RAIMUS who is ironically arguing about the exactness of reason.

"Pure thought" would always lead to the same conclusions, if not for our imperfection. Reason has been perverted every bit monotheistic religions have, like Islam in the present day and Christianity during the Crusades. Not that these are exclusively time periods where monotheistic religions have been abused, but they are good examples of their culturally destructive properties. Following that logic distorted reason can easily follow in their footsteps of bloodshed, into the jungles of Vietnam and the deserts of the Middle East.

Free thinking only seems perfect because of the environment we have grown up in. Realistically it has not necessarily given us anything radically new when other factors are taken into account, such as current level of technology or level of specification in a society.

Reason cannot be perverted because it is not universal. Period. You make a fundamental error in believing reason to be some kind of ethos, which is simply ludicrous. It is Your problem is that you are transfixed with some sort of ridiculous 'religion has been replaced with reason' mindset when in fact reason has always been practised and is simply NOT AN ETHOS. Human beings can and will always engage in warfare, by simple virtue of the fact that we share a planet with finite resources alone.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why are you so quick to denounce religion? Because it is unreasonable? That sounds an awful lot like jumping from one religion to another in the social sense.

Just take ten seconds and try to draw some parallels between not reason itself, but how reason is treated in present day society.

Religion is highly reasonable to many. Many people practice many religions that have devised practical ways of peacefully coexisting. The tenets of those religions are based on reason. The dogma of those religions are based on man's 'arty' side.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It is not enforced, as none of the underlying factors I have talked about have been, it is a natural progression. No one is forcing anything.

Everyone being right doesn't do anyone any good, also ironically as RAIMUS states. As he said, agreeing to disagree is a pretty pointless endeavor in a braoder sense. I don't know why you're so quick to jump to it.

Of I see, there should only be one 'right'. Who will enforce this pray tell? Who decides? I understand culture shifts are often not forced but your erroneous treatment of what reason is, the fact you confuse it with culture/religion and the fact that it has been practised since caveman times deflates your argument.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You don't "implement" a fundamental social change, it just happens. I am predicting the inevitable.

Bullshit. To attribute every advance to reason and not even some degree to blind luck just shows your utter bias.

Reason is the functioning of the mind to come to a conclusion on a matter. What is the first question one asks oneself when approaching a task? "How do I do this?". That didn't start in 1700. I'm afraid your blurred treatment of reason renders your assertions and visions for the future somewhat null and void.

I reiterate the bottom line - reason didn't pop out of a magic lamp rubbed three times circa 1700.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-28 01:31:15)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Well no duh reason isn't ethos, by very definition it's logos.

Reason can and often is perverted. Even ignoring the fact that pure logic can only lead to one conclusion, the mere fact that we don't have all the necessary information to make an informed decision even within our individual moral standard about any particularly important questions just goes to show that it's a joke to call anything coming out of a person's mouth "reason".

Reason like humans can be imperfect. There is no doubting that. Reason cannot be perverted. Reason is particular to the person making use of it. As such 'reason' is correct in the frame of reference of the person using it. Only prevailing culture dictates whether someone's assertion is generally accepted not to be rational.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Reason has always been practiced, much as some form of religion has just about always been practiced. That however is not the point, the point is that reason currently forms the basis of our society, as religion has formed the basis of Western society in other eras.

Reason has always been the basis of society. Always. What are the kosher laws in Judaism? Ancient Israelites trying to come up with a diet and standard set of life practices that avert illness. How did they arrive at the code? By empirical analysis, trial & error, accumulated knowledge and reason. How will this theorised leap of mankind of yours take place? A magical thought from nowhere entering someone's head? Or someone or a group of people arriving at it through their own particular brand of reason?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You have a very narrow minded and depressing view of the future of humanity, and honestly an unfounded one.

Unfounded, and yet you can't tell me why?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Religion is highly reasonable to many today. Some years ago it would not have to have been reasonable at all, it would have been taken purely on faith, and everyday decisions would need no better justification than that.

You can see the vestiges of reason in the basic tenets of all religions. Just because it's hidden doesn't mean you can disregard it. A religion that regarded it as reasonable to burn ones head off at the age of 10 it wouldn't have lasted very long, would it?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There is one right according to natural law. No one person can enforce what is right, no one person can even comprehend what is right, but that doesn't stop right from existing.
Reason has not been practiced in the excess as we see it now. That is the key point.

'Natural Law' eh? Written down anywhere? If indeed there is a 'Natural Law' then I would imagine it might be the most basic one: dog-eat-dog survival-of-the-fittest hunter-gatherer type stuff. I don't regard that as 'right' quite frankly as an intelligent human being knowing the benefits of co-operation. To suggest that there is one right is frankly astounding. It would actually make a very good debate topic however (seriously) - "Do you believe there is only one right?". You are almost beginning to sound like a preacher. Why does there have to be 'right'? It's the same as 'why does there have to be a start?'. Can't time be infinite? You are making rather ostentatious statement here. And as to your second point, examples please.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

As the Jews weren't the first to come up with the concept of an all-powerful being. That's not the point.

Monkeys know how to use reeds to fish termites out of termite-mounds - obviously using some sort of logical reasoning. It ain't magic. I'm pretty sure they don't have any monkey-deities.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-28 16:57:09)

I think the problem here FM is that you have semantics issues:

"Reason involves the ability to think, understand and draw conclusions in an abstract way, as in human thinking. The meaning of the word "reason" overlaps to a large extent with "rationality" and the adjective of reason in philosophical contexts is normally "rational", not "reasonable"."

All you seem to be talking about is culture and what is regarded as 'reasonable' at this point in time. It's a moot point. What you're talking about has fluctuated since time immemorial and will continue to do so. Reason, as defined, will never change and will always and has always been the driver of man's mental development.

I might get back to you on that one.

topal63 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I understand what reason is. What is more interesting is the vast difference between how reason is viewed now compared to past societies, and in drawing parallels between reason and other things that have been viewed in a very similar manner in other time periods.

There have been a lot of other aspects that have lead to man's mental development, particularly evolutionary instincts and operant conditioning. You don't need reason to understand a pointy rock helps you avoid being mauled by that bear.

Sorry, but you do need reason.

And, you can put that pointy rock on the end of a stick. Then on a stick that can be levered/tossed like a javelin. Then you can place it on the end of a smaller stick with ailerons; pluck it from a bow and fire it from a distance. And so on...

And, it isn't just the pointy rock on a stick that allows you to defeat the bear. Defeating said bear is also found in understanding the bear's behavior. And once man moves beyond instinct, with reason to an understanding of dominance, it is the bear's instincts that must adapt and conform to fear man...

I said there were other factors. I didn't say reason was not a factor at all.

You give man too much credit. We don't "understand the bear's behavior" any more than any animal understands another animal's behavior.

They are not different answers. They both = 100. And the only reason(s) one would give 4 quarters vs 10 dimes are: it might be simply what they have, mere behavioral preference, etc. But, each reasoned is the correct sum.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-29 14:05:59)

Pug wrote:

I need $1.  You: give me four quarters, Someone else: gives me 10 dimes.  Therefore both are correct. (Imagine this example was more infinitely complex...and the question was more vague).

Either the question isn't specific enough to eliminate both possibilities as an answer, or one of the stances arguing is false.

So no, I do not agree with your proposition.  It is possible for both to be right, or one/both sides to be wrong but unable to prove it to a degree to discount the other.

In other words, the question can be the problem, as well as the "correct" answers being debated.

I don't know how many times I have said the question must be clearly defined.

In any case topal is right, I said there is a correct answer but not one answer. What's the solution to x²=16?

topal63 wrote:

You are making a minor mistake here. It is an assumption (something you're reasoning, based upon the reason-toolset you've acquired).

You might be assuming a.) you need to comprehensively understand bear behavior - in order to have control. But, I am almost sure you'd agree that comes in incremental degrees: control that is, as well as understanding or knowledge, or etc.

b.) You might be assuming something different. That I implied comprehensive understanding is necessary to control a situation or that I implied control is comprehensive in this situation. But, I think you'd agree I didn't imply it - nor do I think it's necessary.

I am assuming that man is not completely, only nearly physically inept, and with a weapon to even the odds he has a slight chance of winning.

Here's another before I get back to work.

I give my five year old the choice between 10 dimes and 4 quarters.  He takes 10 dimes every time, although I tell him they are equal.

So another factor is your reasoning could be truthfully flawed because of a difference in morals and/or culture differences.

Pug wrote:

Here's another before I get back to work.

I give my five year old the choice between 10 dimes and 4 quarters.  He takes 10 dimes every time, although I tell him they are equal.

So another factor is your reasoning could be truthfully flawed because of a difference in morals and/or culture differences.

That doesn't prove anything about reason per se. That simply indicates behavior. Another child might prefer the quarters because they are bigger. Or another child might prefer quarters if a machine that dispenses: candy or toys takes quarters as opposed to dimes. All you are really doing is demonstrating that behavior can be understood if reasoning is applied.

_______
Your example: might demonstrate that intellectually your child doesn't really understand they are the same. When his/she is older he/she might, but not yet. He/she might reason, at this stage of development, that 10 is more than 4 and prefer 10 over 4, because he/she thinks 10 is more than 4. (And of course logically it's true: 10 is more 4 even if they, as things, represent something else at the same time).

Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-29 13:20:36)

It's of no reasoned consequence that he/she prefers 10 dimes to 4 quarters. You, are not demonstrating reasoning. You are demonstrating behavior and nothing more. Behavior influencing reasoning in a negative way is not proof of reason either - it is proof that it can directly and certainly interfere with making a correct reasoned choice. In your example they are both right answers of an equally reasoned sum; there is no reasoned consequence - only behavior influencing an inconsequential choice.

Your child might not be able to reason that 9 could be less than 4, depending on the situation. You might explain to him that 9 dimes is less than 4 quarters. But, remove yourself as an authority figure (which influences human behavior) and:

a.) Don't offer up the authoritative explanation he/she might not actually understand.
b.) Give it some time - for the explanation to fade from memory.

Place 9 dimes in one dish and 4 quarters in another and he/she might choose 9 dimes which is less, because he/she can't reason that 9 is less than 4 in this case. And, might not care either.

__________

Pug wrote:

Here's another example:
I once chose a car because I'm too tall to fit into a BMW.  Logic dictates the BMW is a better choice for numerous reasons, but my most important reason is fitting in the car.  Someone who is shorter than me with the same resources would choose the BMW over the shitbox I drive.  So what is the better car?  El Shitbox or the BMW?

Reasoning is a result of the point of view.

Logically you've admitted, which is self-defeating to your argument, that the most important reason is fitting into the car. So logically you'll end up with El Shitbox, if that is the only car you'd fit into.

Also, often choice isn't necessarily about reason anyway. For example I like they way certain things taste. So I buy certain foods I think taste good. It isn't a logical choice; reasoning for the most part isn't involved. It might make logical sense for me to not eat certain things I like, because they might actually be bad for me; over time. If I applied reason to some of the choices I make - I might make different choices.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-29 14:25:52)

topal63 wrote:

Logically you've admitted, which is self-defeating to your argument, that the most important reason is fitting into the car. So logically you'll end up with El Shitbox, if that is the only car you'd fit into.

Also, often choice isn't necessarily about reason anyway. For example I like they way certain things taste. So I buy certain foods I think taste good. It isn't a logical choice; reasoning for the most part isn't involved. It might make logical sense for me to not eat certain things I like, because they might actually be bad for me; over time. If I applied reason to some of the choices I make - I might make different choices.

Again, I'm illustrating that the difference between the choices have to do with the differences between the individuals, both reasons are valid choices.

I thought we were talking about people being given the same question and come up with different answers?  Are we not?

topal63 wrote:

No.

Some choices don't have an incorrect answer. Any choice is valid or correct at that point. If I were to go left vs right then hop up and down a few times instead of bending my knees low to the ground; then sprint instead of jog; and then walk home; go to my refrigerator and choose a diet sprite instead of a diet coke - what would be the reasoning behind it all? There is a myriad of behaviors and choices being made in that activity. Some involving little or no reasoning at all.

But...

What is 10 times 10? You either posses the reasoning toolkit to come up with correct answer or you do not.
Should a structural engineer disregard his calculations and choose an architectural aesthetic that cannot be designed properly? Consequence of the choice dictates a preference; bias; or behavior; must give precedence to reason (his learned skills; reasoning toolkit; must dictate the correct choice) in this case.

OR

Pug wrote:

I thought we were talking about people being given the same question and come up with different answers?  Are we not?

No, yes... maybe?

I'll continue because this is interesting.

Simply put, to illustrate a point:

10 x 10 equals four in binary code.

What's correct is a matter of your bias of what's correct.

Earlier, Flaming asked what the square root of 16 was:
x = 4
x = -4
x = 1+3
x = 2x2
and so on.

Whether the answer is correct is inconsequential to what I'm saying.  Sometimes the answer can be completely false.  The only thing that matters is whether someone believes that it's true.

The conviction of truth is what makes reasoning a point of view.  And since you brough it up...if you have two perspectives if shared reasoning isn't a requirement...aren't you saying reasoning isn't a requirement of truth?

Last edited by Pug (2008-10-29 19:43:19)