Talk:Reason/Archive 1

"Idiotic"
This disambiguation is idiotic! The philosophy term is by far the dominant meaning here. I'm going to move this back to fix all the misdirected links here. --mav 23:16, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Moved. Old talk at talk:Reason (philosophy) --mav


 * Indeed, Reason Magazine is called that because the philosophy term is the dominant meaning. 134.84.86.61 16:52, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lighter test
It haven't seen it mentioned anywhere, but has anyone ever tried the 'Lighter test' on someone. You pull out a lighter, fire it up, and slowly take it closer to someone elses face. Some people will back away their heads trying to avoid it when actually, it is simpler to actually just blow the flame out, yet sometimes people don't think of it. Interesting effect related to reasoning. --madar chod


 * You can blow out a candle, but it may be difficult to blow out the flame of a lighter. A lighter's flame is fueled by gas or lighter fluid. This is not as easy to extinguish as a candle. A person may be thinking in this way and conclude that it is safer to move their head than to try to blow out the lighter's flame.Lestrade (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade


 * Well, the last time someone tried this on me, I punched them, which seemed reasonable enough at the time. Word to the wise. Baadog (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting the violence aside, what you did by protesting was sensible more than reasonable (see my entry below on "logos").--74.88.152.221 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern Christianity and reason

 * modern Christianity, especially in the Protestant churches, tends to allow to reason a wide field,

Why "especially Protestant churches"? Those Bible-literalists who say humans did not evolve from other species and this planet is only 6000 years old are all Protestants. Michael Hardy 16:54, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Following my general re-write of the article (see Cleanup, below) I went back and took a look at this, and removed it as POV. --HK 14:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio of Britiannica online?
Britannica online has an entry "reason," and it contains the same or very similar paragraph as this article. Upon checking the past versions, I found that at least two paragraphs look alike between the britannica online's and this version of wikipedia article. Tomos 21:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alex Tiefling, why is mentioning support of reason vandalism?
It is a fact that Objectivism provides a support of reason.

If the support is false, why bother removing it, the support still exists. And an encyclopedia ought to mention what exists, not what you would like people to know exists.

If it is removed again, I will report this to wikipedia and have the moderators decide this issue.

If there is anything untrue about my addition, suggest improvements, or modify it. But if you try to hide facts for being facts, I will win the support of the wikipedia moderators.

Peace.

El Pablo
The problem is how Rand defines reason. Reason, definitionally, is rationalist. However, the objectivists argue that it is -according to Rand- the logical correspondence to reality. Reality is totally independent of reason. It should be removed, Rand a supporter of logic, NOT reason.

I think it will be helpful to note that Rand wrote

"Contradictions cannot exist. If you come across a contradition, check your parametres.  You will find that one is incorrect"  (Atlas shrugged)  I might have the quote a little bit off.

It sounds like logic to me...74.222.64.182 (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A compromise
Since it's clear that objectivists are going to continue to edit references to Objectivism back into this page, I've edited the entry so that it actually represents an objective account of the relationship between Objectivism and reason. I hope that any Objectivists who want to turn the entry back into a rah-rah bit of propoganistic support of Objectivism will appreciate the irony of their desire.

Let's vote on the truth
Anrwlias removed the objectivism mention due to the lack of NPOV. Which is good, since it is not commonly accepted as right. I also think wikipedia is the only real encyclopedia since its the one that reflect majority opinion, after all there is no reality, 50 million frenchmen can't be wrong! Reality does not exists, existance is an illusion, this text is in your head.

Cleanup
I note the cleanup tag, and it is certainly warranted. This article is certainly not "user-friendly", and shows the tell-tale signs of prior POV wars. I will try to remedy this in the next few days. --HK 14:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Major revision
I have done some fairly radical surgery on the article, eliminating entire sections which seemed to me to be rambling and digressive. I have also tried to organize the article in such a way as to make it more intelligible. I welcome the input of others. --HK 14:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I am responsible for what you cleaned up. I see how you have gone to work but I feel a little as if this comes more from me failing to get a satisfactory version of what I was trying to explain across. I am a little worried you might have deleted and sidelined things you had not quite finished judging. You have instead put in some nice structure and quotes. I had been trying to find a direction in the actual defining which I think is now harder to find. I am certainly not feeling strongly enough about this to debate it too hard, but I reckon improvement is still possible, and so I'll keep looking at this and might make future suggestions. Andrew Lancaster 19:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition of term
A few comments which I put here rather than jumping into editing (because I accept that the format was messy and the change was called for):

-The Webster definition which is now the CORE of the article is awful. It is based upon the Greeks, but misunderstands them.

-The setting up of philosophical just-so stories where Plato and Aristotle are opposites and David Hume is yet another sort of totally different creature and so on, is something I think most people familiar with these authors find misleading. Andrew Lancaster 20:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The Webster definition (from 1913) clearly reflects the Platonic outlook, that reason is the "faculty of first truths," which has now been pushed aside by the definition prefered by the logicians. I will add a more recent Webster's definition to show how the prevailing views have changed. Perhaps you would like to re-write the "reason as logic" section, since I am inferring here that you are a proponent of the viewpoint. That section still needs some editing, as there are red links, etc. --HK 21:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Not at all - more the opposite. I just don't think Plato or Aristotle ever proposed that reason was the faculty of first truths. I know you did not write that but can you justify that? Andrew Lancaster 22:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In the article I quote Plato, from the Republic: "...you will understand me to speak of that other sort of knowledge which reason herself attains by the power of dialectic, using the hypotheses not as first principles, but only as hypotheses -- that is to say, as steps and points of departure into a world which is above hypotheses, in order that she may soar beyond them to the first principle of the whole..." --HK 22:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the connection, and I think you've got the wrong idea. Socrates (not Plato) is saying, according to this, that reason can somehow soar towards first principles. To equate that to it being a faculty of first principles seems to require quite a bit of extra discussion. To avoid unnecessary debate, let's just say that the connection is not obvious enough to take for granted. I think that we have to write something that most possible people who read and think about these subjects is going to agree with. Andrew Lancaster 22:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have left this for further comment but see no response. I intend to try to write a new version of the section concerning Reason versus Logic. While I have serious objections to the very simplified and wrong description of Plato and Aristotle (who by the way did not have two words to contrast logic and reason) it is in any case not the subject of this article. As usual, if I am totally out of line people can revert. But in any case the current test appears totally wrong to me. Andrew Lancaster 11:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would make a couple of observations. The Republic is a dramatic work by Plato, and when words are spoken by the character of Socrates, it may or may not be a true historical record; it may also be that Plato is employing Socrates as a dramatic foil, just as Shakespeare took certain liberties in his history plays, which are works of drama, not historical treatises. The important point is that the overall conception which is being conveyed is Plato's.


 * The other observation is that there was a Platonic tradition that developed over centuries, and it was understood that Plato and Aristotle represented two warring camps (as Heine said); it wasn't until recently that the academic community began to claim that Plato and Aristotle were essentially similar. I think this coincides with the change in the popular definition of Reason, and the article should continue to report that there was an older conception of what it means, as well as the contemporary one. --  HK   16:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Excessive quoting
The enormous quotes have been reintroduced without comment and each of them requires enormous interpretation in order to understand in this context. Furthermore all are controversial. This is inappropriate for such an article. If someone wants to argue the case, or add a link to a webpage explaining the argument for the 1913 Webster and Poe and so on, fine, but... Andrew Lancaster 18:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Andrew, let's work this through. First of all, it is inappropriate to delete a portion of a dictionary definition. The reader ought to be able to assume that the definition he is reading is complete. The point of including two definitions, one from 1913 and one from the present day, is to demonstrate that there has been a substantial change; however, the part you deleted is the part that has changed, so now there are two virtually identical definitions, which obscures the point. I have the impression -- please correct me if I am wrong -- that the part you deleted is a part that you personally disagree with: "Reason comprises conception, judgment, reasoning, and the intuitional faculty. Specifically, it is the intuitional faculty, or the faculty of first truths, as distinguished from the understanding, which is called the discursive or ratiocinative faculty." You say that this is "not even the traditional understanding," and yet it was in Websters, which particularly in 1913 would be quite authoritative. This part I consider to be of particular importance, and the "enormous quotes" that you object to are there to demonstrate that in the past, this was the mainstream view. Plato, for example, is no minor thinker on the question of reason. It is entirely appropriate to an encyclopedia article to discuss the history of the concept.


 * Regarding your second edit memo: Heinrich Heine and Albert Einstein are both reputable sources. I know nothing about Charles Pierce, and I would have no objection to removing his comments if you like. Also, I did not write the line about Hume denying the existence of a "faculty for first truths," although the Empiricists generally do hold that view. This question seems to be one that you are eager to suppress, and I insist that it is absolutely appropriate to the article. The only basis for deleting material is that you can demonstrate that it is inadequately documented, which I do not believe you can do in this instance.


 * Your third edit memo says "to correct this section would involve turning the article into an article about the Greek language. Note: Plato did not write in English." This makes no sense to me whatsoever; if you are claiming that the translation of Plato is false, please document this claim. It is a standard translation of Plato. Wikipedia policy is that you are not at liberty to introduce your own opinions into articles, and if you disagree with Plato or Poe, please introduce rebuttal material in order to comply with NPOV policy. Outright deletion is considered a form of vandalism.


 * Since your edits in the last 24 hours have consisted basically of wholesale deletion of material, I am reverting to the previous version. I invite you to add more material that you believe can balance the article; if the question of a "faculty of first truths" troubles you, quote some reputable sources that say there is no such thing. But there are clearly others who insist that this faculty exists, and there is no justification for deleting this material. --  HK   23:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I am happy you are willing to discuss this after you have yourself made major edits (including deletions) several times without first justifying them. (I believe most of my edits were partial reversals of your edits, right?)
 * Well, basically your edits were simple deletions of material that I had added. This can't be justified unless the material is improperly documented. --16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not over-simplify. I could do the same for your edits.

1. I think that the dictionary definition is awful and others have also mentioned it. So perhaps it should all be deleted. I left in part as a compromise, but the part that is left over does not say anything that was deleted by you previously. I think most of your extensive additions are very hard to use in any way to define reason.
 * The "awfulness" of the definition seems to be that it mentions a "faculty of first truths," and you seem to take exception to that formulation every time it comes up.
 * More or less correct, but I think I could describe it better by saying that everything interesting in that definition is wrong. All that was leftover could simply have been stated in plain English.


 * My suggestion would be that you simply add rebuttal material, from reputable sources, arguing that there is no "faculty for first truths." A quote from a reputable source may be "awful" when you disagree with it, but it must nonetheless be included under WP:NPOV.--  HK   16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should I show rebuttal evidence for something which appears unsubstantiated in the first place? Cocnerning the dictionary entry you yourself state it is controversial. Concerning all the big quotes, they can only be fit into a definition of "reason" using your very controversial assertions.

2. One of the reasons that 1913 dictionary definitions have been changed might be because there is an interesting controversy, worth discussing. Another possibility is that the old definition was considered poorly written. I think it was the latter in this case. In particular, to contrast reason with the rationcinative faculty is to constrast reason with an old word for... reason. If you think though, that there was a careful argument behind the old definition, which shows us something about a controversy, can I suggest that you write a sub-section about this controversy as such rather than putting this definition at the head of the article?
 * The interesting controversy is the subject of the sub-section entitled "Reason vs. Logic," and the quote from Einstein suggests an explanation for why the definition was changed: there was a campaign by Russell and the empiricists to ban the concept of a "faculty of first truths," considered to be metaphysical. In fact, this controversy is the pre-eminent controversy regarding the question of reason. It appears to me that the discussion between you and myself is simply a re-enactment of this old controversy. Under WP:NPOV we should simply take pains to ensure that both points of view are included in the article. --  HK   16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There have been hundreds of great debates about the nature of reason in history. In order to the one you refer to be put into the definition requires a lot more justification. Who says it's pre-eminent? The publishers of the books? Just for starters, who was Russell arguing with if not Plato? And yet many Plato experts would deny that Plato ever argued this. So who wants to know about fights with straw men?

3. On the other side of the contrast, intuition is a poor translation, but fashionable for a few generations after Kant, of words related to Greek "nous". In Aristotle and Plato the connection between nous and logos is something you could spend your life studying and still not understand. They are certainly not considered equivalent. I would suggest that to define any English term in terms of a difficult Greek word like nous is counter productive. Translations used include "mind", "intelligence", "awareness", "intuition", but never "reason".
 * I am not certain here what in the article you are objecting to. If it is your opinion that the Plato translation I cite is incorrect, please suggest an alternate translation of that passage. --  HK   16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please believe me that for most people this quote just sits there in the middle of the article and does not fit. A better translation would not fit either. It does not seem to have anything to do with the subject. You should be explaining why it is there. Just saying that Plato is pre-eminent it not enough.

4. I humbly submit that simplisitic arguments about disagreements between Plato and Aristotle should never be one's foundation for building a definition in Wikipedia. Plato and Aristotle experts simply do not agree on what Plato and Aristotle differed and agreed upon. But back to basics: "The debate about the relationship of reason to logic extends back to the time of Plato and Aristotle. Plato made a distinction between reason and logic, whereas for Aristotle, the terms were essentially synonymous." Give one citation from Plato and one from Aristotle? I believe you will not find any place where either author stated these things. Also, can you find any place where Plato says that reason is the faculty of first truths?


 * I will get back to you after finding the cites from Plato and Aristotle. It seems, in part, that you are disagreeing with the quote from Heine, and the proper way to do so is to quote another reputable source that says that Plato and Aristotle are essentially in agreement (I suspect that such sources do exist.)
 * No you should fit Heine in, or try to, before anyone can even start to consider whether Heine is wrong or right. There is nothing to dispute at the moment because putting him in just looks irrelevent, and not wrong in any complex way. (By the way, I can't believe that you are asking me for a quote to say that Aristotle and Plato are in agreement. That would not be hard. Surely you know that?)
 * Regarding Plato saying that reason is the faculty of first truths, I infer that from the quoted passage, "...you will understand me to speak of that other sort of knowledge which reason herself attains by the power of dialectic, using the hypotheses not as first principles, but only as hypotheses -- that is to say, as steps and points of departure into a world which is above hypotheses, in order that she may soar beyond them to the first principle of the whole." I am taking "first principle of the whole" to be equivalent to "first truth." --  HK   16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This does not work.

5. I also believe, obviously, that it is inappropriate to go even further, and develop whole sections based upon what people say about what people say about what people say was the differences between Aristotle and Plato (and Hume) - even if the people are famous writers in other fields (Poe, Einstein, Heine). This is an article about reason and not about famous philosophers.
 * Well, this brings us back to the nature of Wikipedia. We write articles which inform the reader as to what established experts have to say about reason, not what we ourselves think about it. --  HK   16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, so write about reason, not about what Poe thinks about etc.Andrew Lancaster 18:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Yes I think the translation is a problem. But before going into the details let's just say that there is no uncontroversial translation of Plato. Because of this, I think it is inappropriate to quote him like this. Furthermore, Plato wrote nothing in his own words, but just wrote dialogues. Because the people in the dialogues disagree with each other and say they are confused, it is silly to use snippets from them as if they are anyone's theory.Andrew Lancaster 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW I believe your passage is near 511b:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168;query=section%3D%23846;layout=;loc=6.511c

The word logos is really there, at least in some of the places in your chosen translation, but it is hard to say how we could connect to a definition of the English word reason. Keep in mind that logos in Greek often just means "account" or the "argument" of a person, or within a discussion. What they are in any case talking about is whether people have access to a solid foundation for their reasoning and debating, not reasoning itself. So this is indeed an important passage in the history of the concept reason, but only in the sense that it addresses a very specific question. There is also a clear distinction between the argument (logos) of a conversation (dialectic) and "what it lays hold of" [ho logos haptetai]. The word intelligible is related to nous in this passage. There is nowhere I can see any justification for saying that Plato uses the word dianoia (understanding) in any way to stand for logical reasoning as per your commentary in the article. Andrew Lancaster 10:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have jumped to a new heading below entitled "request for comment," where we can continue this discussion. --  HK   22:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Reason only used in two areas?
So this article is only about reason as it is used in philosophy and human sciences? Why only those two areas? I sometimes reason quite a bit when choosing between positions, or does that fall under 'human' sciences too?

"Reason is a term used in philosophy and other human sciences"

This sentence also seems to imply that philosophy is one of the "human sciences", which would surprise both philosophers and scientists.

I have heard the phrase "human sciences" before, but could not find the phrase in wiki-anything. However I have always assumed it meant something like sciences that study humans. I can see where studying humans might require reason, but what about other sciences that study other subjects, not to mention many other areas of life? Why limit reason to those two areas?

Is this article about reason in general or how the term is used by various groups of people, disciplines, areas of study?

It only seems logical, or dare I say reasonable, that reason existed prior to philosophy, science and objectivism since it is a prerequisite of these, no? If so, then doesn't it have a general as well as the mentioned specific uses?

In my opinion, there is a general use of the term reason as well as specific uses. Should this article be only about the general, specific or include all usages?

Jim 21:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup again
This article has lapsed back into some of the problems that earlier made it a candidate for cleanup, which is that there have been additions that verge on POV essay-writing, and subtractions of well documented material. There are also digressions. For example:


 * In everyday speech, “being reasonable” and “having reason” refer more broadly therefore, to the state of a human with full normal faculties of though

I think this were better included under that heading of "For alternate uses see Reason (disambiguation)." Likewise, this:


 * In English, the term “reason” can also be used to mean “cause” as in “cause and effect” which presumably coming from the role reason plays in explanation.

This is the reason we have disambig pages. I reverted some to some of the old sections, while keeping most of the newly added material, such as "Reason, Truth and Emotion or Passion." This latter section badly needs documentation; remember that Wikipedia reports on the opinion of recognized experts, and does not offer a venue for essayists. I added a pertinent reference to Schiller on this topic; some of the other stuff will need to be documented, or pruned. --  HK   08:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A compromise will have to be found in this case because these other meanings of the word reason of important offshoots of the main meaning that make no sense without it. Note also the remark by someone else that the article should not just be about reason as used in philosophy and social science, which is true. I think this amount of disambiguation would be inapporpriate for this special word. Andrew Lancaster 18:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No mention of Descartes
No mention of perhaps the greatest philosopher other than Kant to attest to the power of reason, and again with Kant, one of its arch exponents: Descartes. --Knucmo2 11:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As every philosopher wrote about reason, where do we draw the line? Andrew Lancaster 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, the fact that an article on reason doesn't mention Descartes is like an article on evolution without mentioning Darwin. Descartes founded his whole philosophical method on the rational insight of reason, and conceptualised it somewhat.   I am not concerned with other philosophers until the business regarding Descartes is sorted out, and if you thought my post was a call to include every philosophers view about reason then you are severely mistaken due the analogy I have given in this post. --Knucmo2 20:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I am asking why Descartes is not more important than other philosophers. This article could become overwhelmed. You might think Descartes is particularly important, but we have to be careful to keep the article under control. I think you exagerrate when you compare him to Darwin in evolution though. Andrew Lancaster 08:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about the article possibly spiralling out of control - it is looking that way already. Perhaps I was exaggerating, but it merely served to illustrate that reason was the edifice upon which his entire method was built, and many imitated this or adapted it since (Rationalists). --Knucmo2 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
I have posted a Request for Comment, because I think that the views of additional editors would be helpful in sorting this out. There is an extended debate above, under the heading "Cleanup." The debate could be summarized, in my view, as follows: editor Andrew Lancaster objects to any reference to reason as the faculty of first truths. He wishes to remove large sections of the article that refer to this point of view. I think the sections should remain; they are properly documented, as per Wikipedia policy. I would like to see input from other editors. --  HK   22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am responding from the requests for comments page. Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy In viewing the history of edits, though I am an uninterested third party, the conflict seems to revolve around a definition of "reason." Would it be possible for 2 definitions of reason to exist on the same page? Apparently each of you have a refutable, unimpeachable source as per WP:V and are editing out each other's definition to have your own appear. Wouldn't it be possible, at least in theory, for the article to illistrate 2 quite different definitions. Apparently one of you want emotion to be included in reason. The other comment I would like to make is regards to the phrase, "first truths" and its underlying assumptions. Animals survive. Single celled organisms survive. Their truth is real simple. "I want to live" There might be an underlying assumption to the phrase "first truths" that isn't immediately apparent, that the two of you might talk over. good luck. Terryeo 23:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are two (and possibly more) definitions illustrated in the article. They are the ones loosely described as "rationalist" and "empiricist," which might also be summarized, again loosely, as those who believe in a "faculty of first truths," and those who don't. I think the article should continue to compare both definitions. I structured the section "Reason and Logic" with two subsections, "Reason vs. Logic" and "Reason as Logic" so as to contrast the two viewpoints. I am open to suggestion as to how this might be better presented, but I object to the idea of only presenting one of the two POVs.


 * Beyond that, I think that there are also many remaining sections that need work. I don't like the formulation that "Rationalists believe reason has an ability to intuitively apprehend fundamental truths," because I think that "intuitively" is a misleading adverb. On this, it is possible that Andrew agrees with me. But the big issue is whether both definitions should be included. --  HK   07:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have several seperate concerns:

1. The quotes a long and not obviously relevent. It should be possible for a reasonably intelligent reader to work out what they have to do with defining reason. There is one very famous quote about Plato which is perplexing the way it is used, and the rest are quotes about quotes about quotes so to speak.

2. I have no problem with including controversial ideas, but if they are controversial they should not be put at the head of the whole article.

3. I think the article should avoid becoming an article about whether Plato agreed with Aristotle, or how to translate Greek, which is what fixing the Plato citation would require.

For example, if the main point is that we want there to be a section on empricism versus people who have argued for a priori or intuitive access to "first truths" then mention it, but why do it with quotes which are able to be interpreted in other ways? (I think that in fact there are not many philosophers who ever argued very hard for a priori access, but that's another story.) In fact, this debate *was* mentioned before the massive deletions which were then replaced by odd quotations. I think that while this sounds like it is in the spirit of wikipedia it has been detrimental to the article. Andrew Lancaster 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be better if we go through section by section also. I shall start new sections where we can argue out things in more detail. Andrew Lancaster 11:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Response to RfC---


 * it seems to me that this whole issue of 'first truths' is a bit confounded. two things going on here: one is epistemological - the necessary step from the particularity of immediate experience to the generality of 'truths'.  the other is ontological - the question of the prior existence of these 'truths'.  all sides (well, there are a couple of trivial exceptions) accept that we do not perceive truths as first principles.  the ugly disagreements are all ontological (do we perceive things which are poor reflections of some prior truth? construct truths inductively from evidence? create truths out of whole cloth and find evidence that confirms them?).  I think you need to untangle these before you can untangle plato and aristotle  Ted 10:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that as the version stands today HK has given very little ground, which is unreasonable given that attempts by others to change the large changes made by HK have been reversed without any defence being offered. The section about first truths does make a little more sense within itself but it is no longer obvious what it has to do with reason at all. What HK wrote over to begin used the much more common sense way of discussing the problem, which is the question of whether/how reason can attain truth in any way. The question of "first truths" is secondary to the question of any truths.Andrew Lancaster 14:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposals for Change 1: Introduction
I think everyone agrees that the introduction should mention that reason is the type of thought typical of humans. If that needs a quote, then Aristotle would seem the most appropriate as I think it was he who developed the concept in this. (All citations of Greeks before him talking about reason are actually of people talking about "logos" which meant a whole bunch of every day things in Greek, for example "account".)

I think some discussion about the history of word is important - especially as it connects reason to logic, rationality and language - all presumably to be discussed in later sections.

Controversies:

1. I agree with those who feel that the every day meaning of reason is not different enough to move to a disambiguation. Reason and rationality is connected to what people mean when they ask others to be rational or be reasonable, or when they say something has a reason, or when they say someone has no reason or rhyme etc etc. These terms would not be worth talking about apart from the main meanings, as they make no sense except as slight extensions of the main meanings.

2. I believe that mimesis and fantasy/imagination are aspects of reason, but realising this is not something everyone can agree with easily, I think this can be moved to a section dealing with reason and language for example.

3. I strongly believe that the dictionary quote is simply bad. Those who wish to defend it can do so as follows: it appears to be intended to reflect the authors understanding of traditional philosophy. So find any traditional philosopher who clearly explains reason this way in his own terms. Useless for this purpose would obviously be cases of philosophers claiming that their opponents think this way. In the meantime, I think the definition should be removed until it can be defended. Should someone find a good argument however, I still think that such a controversial argument will not belong in the introduction.

...but for example, to contrast reason with the ratiocinative faculty (literally, the faculty of reason) is simply dumb. Books can be wrong. Andrew Lancaster 12:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Responses: regarding controversy number one, I have no problem with it, provided the everyday meaning is presented as you say -- a slight extension of the main meaning. People will not most likely be looking up "reason" in an encyclopedia to learn the everyday meaning.


 * With all due respect I think people do this. Andrew Lancaster 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding controversy number two, again, no problem. That passage was left over from the version before I did my re-write.


 * Regarding controversy number three, I propose the following: that the 1913 dictionary definition be moved to "Reason and Logic," and juxtaposed to the contemporary definition, so as to make a bit more clear the rationale for including both, i.e., to illustrate the change in popular consensus about the meaning of the word. You may strongly believe that the dictionary quote is simply bad, but in terms of Wikipedia policy, a dictionary quote is considered a source, and an editor's strong beliefs are not. I think it would be appropriate to move it from the intro, though. Let me know whether this proposal is acceptable to you. --  HK   22:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If any authority trumps any argument or discussion of clarity of definition then of course the article can just be filled with whatever people want. Maybe I'll put a quote from Pink Floyd in. Or, maybe people who feel able to rewrite an article on a philosophical subject for the general public should feel some responsibility to write a coherant argument. Andrew Lancaster 14:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policies are not arbitrary or capricious; in fact, they are pretty sound (I would even go so far as to say that if they were enforced in an even-handed manner, Wikipedia could become a reliable source of information.) There are guidelines for what is an acceptable source (see WP:RS,) and there is a prohibition against simply putting in your own opinions, regardless of how right or wrong they may be (WP:NOR.) --  HK   15:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposals for change 2: reason and logic
Currently there are 3 sections with almost the same name (R and L, R vs L and R as L), the first two are made up of large quotes placed into the article by HK, the third section is the scraps HK has left behind of things which were once in other sections and parts of bigger arguments. The nett effect is confusion.

I argue (see above) that the 2 sections inserted by HK are collections of quotes which are not directly about the subject at hand. They claim to be about an important contrversy but if so, they misunderstand it. I can put one aspect of my claim more simply: I know of no philosopher who ever claimed in his own words that reason is logic. The confusion between the two is important to address however.

The Plato quote chosen for example speaks of logos as something helps us grasp first principles. This neither implies that it the faculty of first principles, or that Plato can be contrasted with Aristotle about whether reason is logic. Where does Aristotle say reason is the same as logic? Heine says Plato and Aristotle disagree, but about what?

The assertions made about Plato and Aristotle are simply not backed up, and I don't believe they can be.

What most important philosophers have argued instead is that reason is something to do with language, or perhaps the ability to create language and so on. Something of this argument can still be read out of the third section.

Another subject is also mixed in which should also be dealt with seperately, and this is the questions of whether reason *gives access* to "first principles". (No one ever argued that reason is the faculty of first principles as far as I know.) HK seems not to realise that this is the same question as whether reason *gives access* to the truth. This discussion should be dealt with under the latter question, which was in the article unti HK's large amendments. The Poe quote for example, is *only* about whether reason gives access to the truth. It does not belong in a section about reason vs logic.

In Reason and Logic, the third section filled with scraps of pre-HK work, a new dictionary definition has been inserted at the top. I presume this is a result of editing. Shouldn't this be back in the introduction? It does not belong there anyway.

My proposal: anything HK can not explain should be removed. Anything HK can explain should be possible to integrate into section "Reason and Logic" which is supposedly covering the same topic. It makes no sense for everyone to write their own section. Andrew Lancaster 12:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it is likely that the intervention of third parties will be necessary to sort all this out. I will repond to a number of points. First of all, the whole basis of empiricism is that knowledge comes first from sense perception, and then more general knowledge proceeds by induction, a form of logic. This approach does not admit the possibility of any access to first principles other than via this route. I hope this is clear. Aristotle approaches it differently: deduction, as opposed to induction -- but still considered logic.


 * Andrew, you perplex me with your statement, "No one ever argued that reason is the faculty of first principles as far as I know." The dictionary definition, to which you object so strenuously, says "Reason comprises conception, judgment, reasoning, and the intuitional faculty. Specifically, it is the intuitional faculty, or the faculty of first truths, as distinguished from the understanding, which is called the discursive or ratiocinative faculty." So it seems to me that what you really mean to say is not that no one has ever argued that this is so, but simply that you have never agreed that it is so. Again, under WP:NPOV, all points of view must be included in the article, and if you strongly disagree with a point of view, your recourse is to present rebuttal information from recognized sources.


 * "All" points of view? That will be difficult. Surely some take precendence. Can I suggest that the dictionary entry was clearly written as an attempt to summarise philosophers, and that the real words of philosophers should take precedence? Philosophy is in a way the master's version of the defining art, and so dictionary writers are always particularly subservient to philosophers when it comes to their terminology. In any case it is quite obvious that the dictionary does not "argue" for anything.Andrew Lancaster 20:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We should continue to hash this out, but I hope that other editors will join in as well. --  HK   22:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that, and indeed this could be interesting. But still, let's agree to not to over-write others with anything controversial, and to put controversial arguments into sub-sections.Andrew Lancaster 20:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Specific suggestion to HK
I dare not do it myself but 1. I still feel that someone should try to unify the three sections which have virtually the same title. What does not fit has perhaps not been fully thought through. 2. I think that the discussion about whether/how we have access to first principles is better discussed as a part of whether/how we have access to truth. This will also help epxlain to readers why "first principles" are interesting to normal people. Good luck.


 * Ummm... it is one section now, with two subsections. We could remove the sub-headings and make it one homogenous section, but I think that the sub-headings help clarify things.


 * In my mind, "first principles" and "truth" are pretty much equivalent. But then, as you know, I lean toward the Platonists. --  HK   01:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Put it this way, it should be made more clear that this is one section (I'd say the three sub-sections are in reality 3 seperate sections because no attempt has been made to link them for readers), and it should be made more clear that there is a connection between first principles and truth. In my opinion, you should start with truth, an every day word, and then move towards the debates about first principles.Andrew Lancaster 15:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. I'll take care of that in the next day or so. --  HK   15:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now attempted to do so. Please note that the first 3 or 4 times the topic comes up, the formulation used is "faculty of first truths," rather than "principles." But I have prefaced it now with a sentence describing conflicting concepts of how to search for truth, to make it simpler and more accessible. I hope this is what you had in mind. --   HK   08:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Plato and Aristotle
Something I have mentioned before but have made no impact: to say that Plato and Aristotle define two sides of an argument about the nature of reason (which to begin with is a modern word that would not be possible to translate simply into classical Greek) is at best controversial, and therefore not appropriate to use in this definition. Andrew Lancaster 11:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It may be controversial, but it properly sourced to a notable commentator. It would be improper for the intro, perhaps, but not improper for the body of the article. I might suggest that you add an opposing point of view, sourced to another notable commentator. --  HK   14:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First, because the article is about reason, and not Plato and Aristotle I do not really think such a controversy is relevent enough, surely? Second, NB: No, you have not given any authority for the most most controversial statements you make about the nature of the difference between P and A. Heine for example, who would be an odd person to lay such weight on anyway, is only quoted as saying that these two philosophers had two opposed systems. There is STILL no justification for your statement that reason is the faculty of first truths, nor any for the assertion that Aristotle argued that reason is narrowly defined as the faculty or process of drawing logical inferences. In fact I think it is quite orthodox to say that these two statements are not just controversial but both simply wrong. You can go read Plato and Aristotle yourself and check, and if you don't have the time then you shouldn't be teaching others about what they said. Plato never defined logos, or what relates to it, as the dunamis of finding archai and Aristotle never defined logos, or what relates to it, as the same as syllogism. Andrew Lancaster 13:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please remember that the statement that Reason is the faculty of first truths is not "my" statement, it comes from Webster's dictionary, which is considered authoritative in most circles. This seems to be the crux of your objections. I don't understand why you find it so objectionable, but again, I would suggest that you find a credible source that refutes it. As for the other issues, why not propose some alternate formulations on this page, so that we may discuss them? --  HK   15:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Concerning the dictionary definition, you leave absolutely no room for discussion. It is obviously possible that an authority normally accepted can be wrong. If someone claims this is wrong, you can compare to other authorities and check. You seem to be saying that you refuse to do this. The definition is wrong. There is no doubt about that. You now ask me to make proposals. I will do so on the main page, because the whole article should "hang together" and it needs a big effort to get that now. But please do not just reverse it! Every proposal I have made previously has been vetoed by you in defence of this one odd old dictionary whose argument you can not even defend. The only way open is that someone is going to have to keep re-writing this until you get sick of defending the indenfensible! You also have not addressed the fact that you include too much about Plato and Aristotle and other subjects (metaphysics, empiricism, logic etc etc) which should be in other articles. Rather than continually adding these things back into this article, feel free to make changes to those other articles in order to make sure they cover these of this article when it defers to them. --Andrew Lancaster 09:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A Major Re-Edit
I have stripped the article of all the repetition and over-erudite discussions about unrelated subjects such as the opinions of Schiller about the soul, or Heine about the history of philosophical debate. I have also removed all statement which was clearly debatable, such as opinions about how far apart Plato and Aristotle were on logic, or the old quote from the Webster dictionary. My concerns were discussed many times and many piecemeal edits have built up over a long period, simply worsening the article. Nevertheless, what I now proposed is still based on all the relevant points other had made before and contains a lot of the old material. I hope others can now give this re-edit a chance - making careful consideration, and proposing small uncontroversial changes where needed. The main thing this article has suffered from is too many people wanting to show how much they know about lots of subjects all in this one article. Other articles beckon for those with such needs.--Andrew Lancaster 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not really doing a revert, but I'm putting the induction disambiguation back. ArglebargleIV 17:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism and Reason
Could someone add a little information about the Objectivist take on reason, you know to keep the article more balanced in place of the current Kantian slant of "non-thinking". The Fading Light 01:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it not be appropriate to say that Ojectivism is included under Empiricism, which is the traditional word opposed to Idealism like Kant's? Looking at the current article on Objectivism on Wikipedia, it says "She [Rand] disagreed with the empiricists mainly in that she did not consider the distinction between sensations and perceptions to be meaningful. Thus, she did not believe in the possibility of perceptual error or illusion, only the misunderstanding or improper conceptualization of perceptual data." I think that this distinction is not big enough and not relevant enough to *reason* to justify putting it here. So if you can agree with that, my second question is whether you think empiricism is given a hard time in the article as it now stands? I had not thought so.--Andrew Lancaster 13:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the changes I just made. Maybe this fits your request.--Andrew Lancaster 14:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice... The Fading Light 22:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A statement which seems wrong

 * "We reason when we conclude one thing on the basis of something else. For example, one day you hear the sound of raindrops on the roof and conclude that it is raining outside."

This should be removed because drawing a conclusion like this is obviously not what reasoning means, except in a very vague usage whereby someone might use the verb "reasoning" to mean "thinking". This article is not about the verb. To explain a bit further. If you hear rain and conclude it is raining, you might not have any consciousness at all about how you came to that conclusion. It is an habitual conclusion that you come to when you hear that sound.--Andrew Lancaster 14:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A redundant paragraph
Everything worth keeping in this:
 * Logic as an academic subject is the theoretical study of reasoning. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle was the first person to write an actual treatise on the subject of logic, indeed he wrote five such treatises in all, and for this he is called the Founder of Logic.

Is already stated or implied in the next paragraph, which originally introduced this section. I do not think it adds anything to the article to mention that there were not one but five treatises, nor that a field of study can become an "academic subject" etc.--Andrew Lancaster 14:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources
It seems rather disturbing that the article on something so intrinsic to nearly all fields of study gives absolutely no sources whatsoever. This article could just as easily be a collection personal opinions of the editors working on it as it could be an objective elaboration on the concept. 74.67.115.126 04:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that as with any complaint, constructive suggestions are better. I think sources could be added, but the text itself has been difficult to agree upon and get legible. Most people have spent time on that aspect. This does not mean that are against more sourcing.


 * I'd also suggest that it is in fact logical that finding sourcing, other than silly sourcing, for any subject which is "intrinsic to nearly all fields of study" is rather difficult. To some extent reason is a very primal thing, which we observe first, and then talk about later. If someone asked you to give a reference for what yellow looks like, this might also be difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What Does It Take To Have An Editor?!?!
It's "in REGARD to..."

Regard(S) are the emoitonal sentiments one exudes toward another in time of suffering!

"Modern proponents of a priori reasoning, at least with regards to language, are Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker, to whom Merlin Donald and Terrence Deacon can be very usefully contrasted."

--Carlon 19:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the verbs that you could use in this position are metaphors which annoy someone, for example "concerning"; or else they are clumsy and unclear, for example "in relation to". So if you are a good editor with a better idea, why not make a proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

World View
Should this article at least mention the non-western world??


 * Arguably, this article is about a very western way of looking at the human psyche. It is not so easy to translate some of these terms into traditional eastern terminology? But on the other hand, maybe the editors who have worked on this so far just don't feel qualified to comment. If you have a specific suggestion, why not suggest it? Or do you just think someone should make up a non-Western section? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to start discussion in preparation for major clean up
This article has a history of getting very messy. There are sentences which seem to come out of the blue, and very odd styles of writing. There are references to many irrelevant things, but hardly any references to core things. It has frequently been mentioned that in the end the article fails to explain what Reason is. And what's worse, the article actually tends to devolve over time, with older versions often better! I propose that we try to get some discussion going in a much more detailed way. If we can come to agreements about what people want in, then we'll be able to do edits with a strong mandate. I am going to go through bit by bit!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The last section: Reason as an intrinsic part of nature
This section seems to have never even been finished by whoever put it in! I know deleting is rude, but frankly... Can anyone give a good reason not to remove this? I am not arguing against it as such, because it is not even sure what it was originally intended to say!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Intro
Three sections can be seen:-

First two paragraphs...

In western philosophy, reason has had a twofold history. On the one hand, it has been taken to be objective and so to be fixed and discoverable by dialectic, analysis or study. Such objectivity is the case in the thinking of Plato, Aristotle, Alfarabi, Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, Aquinas and Hegel. In the vision of these thinkers, reason is divine or at least has divine attributes. Such an approach compelled religious philosophers--Aquinas, for example, Gilson more recently--to square reason with revelation, no easy task. On the other hand, since the seventeenth century rationalists, reason has been taken to be a subjective faculty, or rather the unaided ability (eg., pure reason) to form concepts. For Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, the effort resulted in significant developments in mathematics. For Kant, in contrast, pure reason was shown to have the ability to form concepts (time and space) that are the conditions of experience. Kant made his argument in opposition to Hume, who denied that reason had any role to play in experience.

Are followed by this...

Discussion about reason especially concerns: * (a) its relationship to several other related concepts: language, logic, consciousness etc, * (b) its ability to help people decide what is true, and * (c) its origin. Also see practical reason and speculative reason.

And this closes the introduction...

The concept of reason is connected to the concept of language, as reflected in the meanings of the Greek word "logos", later to be translated by Latin "ratio" and then French "raison", from which the English word derived. As reason, rationality, and logic are all associated with the ability of the human mind to predict effects as based upon presumed causes, the word "reason" also denotes a ground or basis for a particular argument, and hence is used synonymously with the word "cause".

The first two paragraphs show the problems with article right at the beginning. They were added onto the article relatively recently, right at the front. These should introduce the whole subject. English is my mother tongue and I am quite familiar with the subject matter, but I can not understand this sentence. Part of the problem is that it is clearly not appropriate for an opening sentence, because they start from complicated conclusions, and do not explain where they came from. Here is my suggestion: if the above means anything, it must be something to do with a subject which needs discussion further on. So just on pure grounds of trying to help people read this article, I start with one practical proposal which would at least be a small improvement: I believe we should reverse the positions of the above 3 sections so that they go 3>2>1, instead of 1>2>3. If no one explains any reasons that this would make the article worse, it seems uncontroversial, though it is only of course a starting point for more work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And just to make my other practical suggestion more clear: I think the first two paragraphs need a lot of improvement and defending if they are not to be removed completely from the article, or to be constantly in danger of being removed. If they stay in the article in their present form, in any position, they are likely to cause frustrated edits for years to come.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a third practical suggestion. The article clearly needs a first sentence which tries to give a skeleton definition which we'll be coloring in. It should also for obvious reason state things in the least controversial way possible. So here is a proposal:

Reason is a type of thinking, which is particularly associated with humans, and which involves both the building up of assumptions about similarities, differences and causality, and the use of this perspective to then draw conclusions about what is, for example, true, or best, or likely.

Comments please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done a little bit of work on the intro. Though not as drastic a chance as some you suggest I hope it is now easier to read. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Less drastic because that was what you felt like doing at this time, or because you find the introduction good already? I'd like to know if you object to the basic idea that the Introduction right now is not good. I ask it as one of the people who contributed to it over time by the way, and not to insult anyone. In my opinion, the article has lost its way, and the Intro is perhaps the most critical failing. Are there any people out there who think differently and wish to defend the current version?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Less drastic because I believe in going slowly. I do not find the intro as bad as you do, but I do agree that it should start with the basics.  I can continue to make changes, or you can take a shot at it.  Either way is fine with me.  But we badly need to get some references in there. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion I am going slowly. Our changes so far are relatively small, and yours were arguably bigger changes than I had made. For the rest I've only started a discussion. The most drastic thing I have proposed in that discussion is concerning the first two paragraphs. What do you think about those? Upon consideration, it is my opinion that they are garbled discussions about what is probably more orthodox to call the empiricism versus idealism debate, in which case we could move it to a section, and also make it easier for people to cross reference (and find sources for) to by using more common wording. As usual, when I call something garbled, it is not personal. An article like this becomes garbled because different people are editing each other over a long period, and very few have the time to do it well.
 * Any way, let me know what you think about those first two paragraphs. Also, what about my idea of a new opening sentence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a concrete proposal. The first two paragraphs should be moved to the end of the Reason, truth, and “first principles” section, which already discusses the contrast between empiricism and idealism. Of course they still need a lot of tidying up, and that tidying up may show them to be rather redundant compared to what is already in that section. I guess I should wait another day before starting. But to be honest, everybody seems happy to dabble on this article but very few to really spend time on it. So sadly I expect that the moment I make a major change, all the people who should have been answering my proposals will wake up!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the basis of the assumption that moving a paragraph is not as drastic as removing it, I've gone ahead an moved those two paragraphs to the area which already existed before they were inserted, that covers similar subject matter. I hope no-one is too upset by that. The Introduction really needed to be more like an Introduction, with a short summary of the points which are to be filled in later. Please do not ask me to gives sources for those two paragraphs though. I would rather delete them and I doubt sources exist.
 * I am thinking that the changes I've made are much smaller than they look, and represent an effort to keep the spirit of all the parts moved around. I felt it was worth being so unambitious because any improvement is better than no improvement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked me why I did not do more. My answer was not intended to comment on your changes either way.

You point out a problem with Wikipedia -- that people tend to ignore proposals ont the talk page but then get in a huff when there is a big change in the article. And, of course, the problem of dabblers. Be bold! Make a change and see what happens. But, please, supply references.

My own area, mathematical logic, is peripheral to the larger topic of "reason". My main interest in the article is to get the relationship between reason and logic right. Other important topics, especially the recent groundbreaking work on the relationship between reason and the anatomy of the brain, should be handled by specialists in that field. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-deceit
Perhaps this is just my interpretation, but doesn’t the claim that if reason is a tool of desire, that it is likely for people to constantly deceive themselves, seem slightly absurd? Certainly there are individuals who deny deliberately avoid unpleasant facts, or simply rationalize every error they make simply because it is uncomfortable for them to admit being wrong, but regardless, if that were so, wouldn't most people who got fired from a job, most students who failed a class, most drivers who get caught in a car accident, just deny that the event ever happened and continue as if nothing had changed? Further, why would anyone bother to question the nature of the world, or even think about unpleasant occurrences, if emotion is beloved to directly cause self-delusion? One could argue that individuals seek knowledge to rationalize misfortune, but if reason only acted as a means for people to deceive themselves, why wouldn't they just regard their misfortunate event as a hallucination of sorts? In my opinion, people experiencing intense emotions would constitute as a motivation for them not to deceive themselves, as they would realize that, despite the discomfort they would experience acknowledging the fact as so, it would seem worthwhile if it were to either allow them to either repeat or avoid their more powerful emotions, depending on whether they experienced pleasure or pain. At any rate, the act of reasoning would seem to act as a way of one convincing oneself not to think in a self-deceitful manner.


 * The answer is simple, yes this is a problem. It is one of the permanent and possibly unsolvable problems of philosophy. To pretend the problem was not there would be to write untruths. Can you please remember to sign next time by the way? --Andrew Lancaster 14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, if one were to assume that reason is exclusively a tool for self deceit, and that anyone could completely deny any unpleasant experience (subjectively) out of existence, then why is it that anyone is even capable of suffering? If they can simply deny the events to themselves and effectively control every element of the world around them, at least in their own opinion24.24.81.237 06:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not clear what point you are making, or whether you have understood the intention of the text when you commented. The problematic argument, which is nevertheless difficult to ignore, is that we do indeed feel pleasure and pain, and that reason is a result of the way particular pleasures and pains interact. Yes, according to such a description sometimes they can partially over-write each other - we rationalize away something we do not want to know, or we feel a pain less when we know it is for a good cause - but if reason exists in any meaningful sense, then obviously the end results would at least have to have a strong tendency to lead our thinking towards truths.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My second response was somewhat disjointed, I admit. What I was trying to say, is that a claim made under the section reason and passion, attributed to Nietzsche, which seemed to question if self honesty was even possible, although this may have just been a misinterpretation of the claim on my part. If one is to argue that all reasoning is in fact just rationalization, then how would one be able to come to an unpleasant conclusion through a line of reasoning and regard it as true? An arguement that reason only exists as rationalization seems to be incompatible with the potential for reason to at times lead to painful conclusions. Again, I may have misinterpreted the arguement presented. At any rate, the specific claim I was referring to is no longer mentioned in the current revision of this article.66.24.238.22 (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bold!
Ah, now this recent rewrite should get a reaction, if anyone is following this article at all.

By the way, Andrew, you will get more respect if you join Wikipedia, so that your name link is not a redlink, and people can check your credentials. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone over your rewrite and made some changes. Two things seem most important to me at this stage: avoid idle speculation and add references. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going over your changes, and I don't see much to complain about. Just one thing I noticed which was perhaps worth checking. You removed this. I seem to remember that it was put in because many editors had a lot of trouble with the distinction being made between reason and logic. Are you sure that without this, people will not start ruining that section?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "However machines and animals can unconsciously perform logical operations, and many animals (including humans) can unconsciously associate different perceptions as causes and effects and then make decisions or even plans. Therefore, to have any distinct meaning at all, “reason” must be the type of thinking which links language, consciousness and logic, and at this time, only humans are known to combine these things."


 * Upon further consideration the removal of this has perhaps also left the last paragraph of the Reason and Logic section looking lost. It is about what is special about reason in human thinking, so possibly should be kept, but it is not particularly about logic. I'm tempted to say that it could go at the end of the introduction?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the paragraph above was that it makes strong claims without any references. Claims like these must be referenced. I'm considering adding references to the article, but it would be a hard, time-consuming job, and I'd appreciate some help. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the removed paragraph come under the category of being a bunch of everyday observations, thrown in to link and explain more complex ideas? I am not denying that more references would be good, but I'm not sure if you can give references for something like this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether animals unconsciously (or consciously!) perform logical operations is a major, undecided philosophical question, as is the question of whether only humans combine language, consciousness, and logic. I've added a reference that supports the point of view in the paragraph, but many would strongly disagree, claiming that dolphins, for example, combine all three attributes. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Very reasonably stated. First let me state, in case you start guessing it, that the section is based on something I started. At the time I was, like now, trying to pull things together. Second, to defend it further, what I thought it was, was not obvious common sense as such, but rather a few bits of common sense linked together in order to lead readers forward. In other words I am claiming that both the observations and the conclusions drawn from them is pretty common sense. But obviously if it failed for you, it failed. Still, that leaves us with a hole in the article. We could start stripping out more material that needed this paragraph, but is it true that it contained nothing worth keeping?
 * Or could it be a communication failure? For example might the terminology "logical operation" have surprised you too much? If we take logic as in Aristotle though, which type of logical operation have we not all seen animals do? Don't they also collect observations, generalize and then make conclusions and predictions? To me it seems that the difference is that they do not know they are doing it, and that they do not aim to do it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, emotionally at least I like the reference to Kazantzakis. Just to present one more sourcing problem, I'll tell you the source of this type of thinking is Rousseau. Unfortunately I have read about this area a long time but not in the professional way that I keep page numbers around me. If ever I get time... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Rousseau would be a good reference for you to add.

You need to be careful not to post your own ideas. That is considered "original research" and "no original research" is a rule of wikipedia. If somebody flags something you've written as "OR" that means "original research", and it will be deleted unless you can find a published source.

I've also left a message for you on my talk page. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood. I still think that the article's weakness is mainly a case of verifiability problems. If I were the creator of some of these big ideas, I'd be famous. But the article has always had that problem. Someone really needs to spend time on finding sources, but it is difficult to find that time unless you happen to be working on it.
 * But for example I fear that putting an unreferenced comment about Rousseau here might push people beyond the limit and I'd expect reverts. I just mention Rousseau in case someone with a better memory for quotes one days sees it, or in case I one day get the time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How about re-inserting if I change it like this:


 * "However machines and animals can unconsciously derive conclusions from raw information, and then take appropriate actions, and this is not what is meant by logic. Therefore, to have any distinct meaning at all, “reason” must be the type of thinking which links language, consciousness and logic, and at this time, only humans are known to combine these things."

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is still OR. You need references. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't see it. Nobody is going to have written an article explaining to people that animals can for example smell smoke and conclude there is fire. It is too unremarkable. So you must feel that I am claiming something more?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are many articles on, if not exactly the smoke/fire relationship, at least on the extent to which animals are capable of symbol processing. It is a very active area of research, and a highly controversial one. At one extreme, you have people who claim that animals have no conscious thought, or at least that it is impossible to tell whether or not animals have conscious thought. At the other extreme, you have people who claim that dolphins, parrots, chimps, and other animals can reason almost as well as humans, and have considerable language skills. A good recent book on the subject, one of many, is "The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy - and Why They Matter", by Marc Bekoff. I can recommend more if the subject interests you. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am interested, and I think I know the types of article you mean, but these are all quite specific about what they are looking into. Perhaps I am writing in a way which implies something like this, but it is not my intention. All I want to say is that everyone knows that if you kick a dog, the dog understands that it was your foot, and keeps away from the foot. Yes, you could write articles about what is going on there, but this is not the point. My only point is that it is something which is analogous to reason in the sense that data is turned into appropriate actions, but it is not necessarily reason. It seemed important to point out that this is possible, because this article has always had people jumping to say that it is either making too big a claim about animal consciousness or too little, and the aim is to have a text which won't get reverted. Does that make more sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Such discussion does not belong here, but rather in the article Animal cognition. I'll add a reference to the latter article to this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I wrote it wrong, but contrasting reason to what it is not is essential, and if anything this is the aspect of it which people most often get wrong, and which causes the most awful reverting and editing on this article historically.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a big subject, and would swamp this article if a full discussion were given here. But certainly it is a very interesting subject, and should be mintioned here, with a "main article" link. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Protest
Rick Norwood's insistence on defining reason as analysis and synthesis increases the ambiguity of the concept of reason. The word "reason" has a history of being wantonly used to designate many different concepts. The word "reason" signifies one concept. That concept is "drawing a conclusion from premises." Any attempt to have the word designate other concepts, such as "immediate intuition," "analysis and synthesis," "dialectics," "faculty of first principles," etc., results in ambiguity. The word "analysis" has one designation: breaking up a whole into parts. The word "synthesis" has one signification: combining parts into a whole. When a word is used to represent more than one concept, the word becomes ambiguous. An encyclopedia such as Wikipedia becomes deleterious when it confuses and misleads people who are seeking knowledge. By increasing the ambiguity of words, we harm the public.Lestrade (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
 * On second thought, I suppose that a Wikipedia article on an ambiguous word should only try to distinguish the original meaning from subsequent meanings. This would be the case with such articles as Idealism and Concept. In that way, the Wikipedia article would not add to the ambiguity of the word by declaring that the word signifies only one concept. The truest meaning would be the original meaning of the word. Subsequent meanings would only be uses that various people have made of the word by relating it to other concepts. For example, the article on Reason would give the concept that the Greeks used the word to signify. Then, it would tell how the word was used by various people such as Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Dewey, Royce, Rand, Peirce, Heidegger, Horkheimer, etc., to designate other concepts. In other words, don't say that an ambiguous word signifies only one concept. Show all of the concepts that an ambiguous word designates, including the original concept.Lestrade (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Let me give you an example from my own current work in graph theory. I want to find the chromatic number for alphabet overlap graphs. My published proof will depend on the kind of reason Lestrade favors, deduction. But my investigation of such graphs is surely a reasoned investigation, and consists not only of deduction but also of induction: trying to find common ground in a large number of examples, analysis: considering the parts of the graphs separately, and synthesis: figuring out how the parts of the graph fit together. These are activities of the reasoning mind. The inclusion of analysis and synthesis under reason is not "Rick Norwood's insistence...", it is straight out of Aristotle.

Generalization does not necessarily result in ambiguity. That would suggest that "polygon" was ambiguous while "triangle" is not. Reason applies to certain modes of thinking, enumerated by Aristotle and discussed over the last two thousand plus years. Logic is one of those modes of thinking, defined by Aristotle as deduction. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This article still lacks sources

 * This article is not a good advertisement for "reason" -- it is filled with unsupported claims, uncited opinions, and just general rambling chatter. Can't someone put together a clean, well-formed academically-cited essay on this crucial subject? Without sourcing, it is a candidate for dismantling and deletion. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your comment when you flagged the article also: "this article needs some citations lest it be taken as "gospel" by the unreasoning reader". I don't think anyone disagrees that the article could do with more citations. But your wording makes it seem like you see something particularly controversial or unusual is being claimed in the article. Do you have anything in mind? Maybe if you point to what you consider to be the highest priority areas, this might help people see what needs to be done. It's easy to say an article can be improved. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that the flagging gives a pretty good indication of which sentences look like they need help or deletion. Looking over them again does indeed remind one of the work this article needs. It has suffered from dabbling I fear. So, to get the ball rolling I am going to post each of the flagged sentences, and make my own comments. Can others please also comment?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you have admirably understood my brief edit-comment and cite-flags. I will reply to you intertextually below. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1.In Western Science reason is typically treated as an objective or neutral understanding of reality as opposed to emotionalism, which is thinking driven by desire, passion, or prejudice.

This has been changed recently. It has become strange. I think people with an anti science thing have affected this sentence too much, and I think Western Science should not be the subject of the sentence. However I do think that rationalism should be mentioned. And whether or not the rationalism article says it explicitly, the term implies that there are alternatives to reason, such as emotions and faith. Is rationalism a better word here than Western Science? Concerning a citation, using the word rationalism gives us some leads perhaps?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your explanation of the recent change makes sense to me -- and i agree that the intrusion of "Western Science" (with a capital "S" on science, no less!) is was what struck me as "off" about that sentence. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Language however is distinguished in English as necessarily being something in a communicable form, while reason, can refer to an understanding of one individual who can not necessarily communicate it to others.

This one is my "fault" so perhaps someone else should comment. The language article does however also deal with this. An easy person to cite for this would be Thomas Hobbes. For example Leviathan Chapter 4 "The general use of speech is to transfer our mental discourse into verbal". Is that the sort of thing needed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My problem with this was the "in English" portion -- like "Western Science" in the above example, it is tremendously indicative of a programmatic attempt to lead the entirety of Wikipedia down a special-interests path rather than building an encyclopedia. Are you implying that the same distinction is not true of languages other than English? Is it not true of French? Of Spanish? Of Armenian? Of Mandarin? If so, then mention English only -- and then CITE your reason for excluding other languages. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. No the point was that modern European languages make this distinction, but ancient ones didn't. Perhaps explaining this is a bit of a diversion. It'll have to be kept in mind.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

3. When Aristotle referred to "the logical" (hê logikê), he was referring more broadly to rational thought.

Also mine. Also seems obvious to me. Here is a dictionary entry: Is that a good enough source? Here is also a word search showing many Aristotle passages:. You click on the links and see how different people have translated the word into English. Just to take some of the first ones...
 * Eudemian Ethics [1217b] [1]
 * εἶναι ἰδέαν μὴ μόνον ἀγαθοῦ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλου ὁτουοῦν λέγεται λογικῶς καὶ κενῶς
 * the existence of a Form not only of good but of anything else is an expression of logic and a mere abstraction
 * Metaphysics 1005b
 * καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα προσδιορισαίμεθ᾽ ἄν, ἔστω προσδιωρισμένα πρὸς τὰς λογικὰς δυσχερείας
 * and we must add any further qualifications that may be necessary to meet logical objections
 * Nic Ethics 1108b
 * ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν λογικῶν ἀρετῶν.
 * we will deal similarly with the logical virtues

Someone please comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here you understood my tag -- i just wanted assurance that the author was not "making it all up" -- and you have supplied evidence that you did not do so. Now put that evidence inline as a cite and all is well. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's clunky, but some work been done on a windy Sunday afternoon. Hopefully for the better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

4. In classical times a conflict developed between the Platonists and the Aristotelians concerning the role of reason in confirming truth.

For me what is a concern here is the simplistic implication of a debate between Plato and Aristotle themselves. However it is true that the above terms are used to denote two positions on this type of subject, as can be seen if one clicks on the links to the articles on Platonism and Aristotelianism.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, i do not object to the statement, merely to the effect it may have on readers: Students trust Wikipedia, and so we are obligated to provide a basis for their trust. As you know, the personas or "role-playing characters" who appear at Wikipedia as "editors" are actually anonymous, and even though you use a "real sounding" name, any trust extended to you should not be based upon your long experience here or the plausibility of your "real-sounding" name, but on academic sources. The broad-reaching and foundational claim that there was an ancient conflict betweeen the Platonists and the Aristotelians should be backed up with some form of fact-checking. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have softened the connection quite a lot in the edits today. I don't like this terminology, but people insist on it. Hopefully this won't be subject to people reverting the simplified Plato versus Aristotle myth too much into this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

6. On the other hand, if such reasoned conclusions are only built upon sense perceptions, then our most logical conclusions can never be said to be certain because they are built upon the very same fallible perceptions they seek to better.

This is one of those cases in wikipedia articles about "first principles" subjects especially in philosophy, where calling for a citation seems strange to me. I guess just about any work of philosophy will contain passages about this, but it is also self-evident. So what sort of citation is being looked for here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What seems "self-evident" to you may not seem so to me. You claim that my "sense percetions" are "fallible" and can "never be said to be certain" but you have not proved this to me. What if i admit my sense-perceptions are ocassionally fallible but that i happen to always know when they fail and therefore your claim of that they can "never be said to be certain" is bogus?. Do you see where this leads us? You can attempt to change my mind, but you will not be able to do so without a lengthy digression, therefore you can do the next-best thing, which is to supply a reputable third-party citation to equivalent off-wiki in-depth coverage of this portion of your argument. There are college level textbooks that deal with this -- cite one. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While searching for cites I found a nice scolding by Aristotle concerning Democritus. I have inserted it in a footnote and made other changes. For fun, I can respond to your philosophical question as follows: if it is not always reliable how do you know when it is and when it isn't? And if you can't know that, then it is never reliable in the sense which most people seem to believe Aristotle to require.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

7.Concerning mimesis and fantasy being important in defining reason, see for example Aristotle's Poetics, De Anima, On Dreams, and On Memory and Recollection (and for example the Introduction by Michael Davis, printed with the 2002 translation by him and Seth Benardete of the Poetics), Jacob Klein’s A Commentary on the Meno Ch.5, and Tolkien's essay "On Fairy Stories".

This one also has me confused. How do you find a citation to back-up what is essentially already a detailed citation? What is being requested?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In this case the formal structure of the sentence is unbearably sloppy. Titles should be in italics, with inline cite book style refs. Are you citing Aristotle or Michael Davis? What is the Michael Davis translation called? What page are you citing? Make proper references here, that's all i am asking. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so it is not a call for citation, but for the opposite, some material? Makes sense. These cites are place holders as they stand but can be nicely expanded I think, or else perhaps turned into footnotes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

8. The limits within which reason may be used have been laid down differently in different churches and periods of thought: on the whole, modern religion tends to allow to reason a wide field, reserving, however, as the sphere of faith the ultimate (supernatural) truths of theology.

The attitude of modern revealed religions to reason and rationalism does seem to be an important subject. Maybe there are good leads for sources in articles on revealed religion and rationalism for example? Also see Rationalist movement--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My objection to the uncited nature of this sentence is its vagueness. Multiple use of terms like "differently," "different," "tends to," "wide field," and "sphere of faith" give the distinct impression that this sentence could just as easily be replaced by, "Not everyone who identifies as a religious adherent agrees with my opinion." If editors can find no sources about religion and reason, then the entire text dealing with religion and reason should be deleted. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ouch. Well I hope someone comes up with the goods, because I think it is a sub-section that needs to be in there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Things that look like reason, and especially like a logical operation, but are not
I am largely responsible for a paragraph which concludes the section contrasting Reason with Logic, which has however been compromised, such that I am not at all happy with it. I think if nothing is done by me it will eventually be deleted because it is no longer clear. It is as follows today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Neurologist Terrence Deacon, following the tradition of Charles Peirce, has recently given a useful new description of what makes reason distinctive compared to logic, as well as the information processing of computers and at least most animals, in modern terms. Like many philosophers in the English tradition, such as Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, Peirce starts by distinguishing the type of thinking which is most essential to human reason as a type of associative thinking. Reason, by his account, requires associating perceptions with icons. For example, the mind may associate the image (or icon) of smoke with not only the image of fire, but may also associate the word "smoke", or indeed any made-up symbol, with the image of fire. Hence human thought is symbolic. Logic and language are results of this.

Personally I think this is a case where the need to cite sources has taken a subtle argument and made it incomprehensible. I am tending to think that even the sources I added should be removed, so as not to clutter what is in my opinion a statement that anyone will recognize from everyday experience. Here is an idea...

Another way to consider the confusion between logic and reason is that computers and animals sometimes perform actions which are logical: from a complex set of data, conclusions are achieved which are "logical". However, being a cause of something logical does not necessarily mean that computers or animals have reason, or even logic in the strict sense. Some animals are also clearly capable of a type of "associative thinking" - even to the extent of associating causes and effects. A dog once kicked, can learn how to recognize the warning signs and avoid being kicked in the future. Human reason is something much more specific, requiring not just the possibility of associating perceptions of smoke, for example, with memories of fire, but also the ability to create and manipulate a system of symbols, or icons in the terminology of Charles Peirce, which have only a nominal connection to either smoke or fire.

Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally, i would prefer the cited form of any paragraph to the uncited form, but the version you quote above -- the so-called "compromised" version -- is a bit iffy. Can you report your original version, with inline cites, here? There is no reason to let an inferior editorial compromise dilute something that was well written in the first place -- but it is also arguably against Wikipedia policy to delete citations. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, perhaps I said that wrong. What I've done is taken out a digression about a modern neurologist and stuck to the most important points. The modern neurologist being mentioned maybe gave a feeling of better citing, but on reflection I thought it was a digression. It is not that the paragraph is entirely un-cited. In any case, I've since done some major work on the article, which makes it possible to look at everything in context. Could you have a look at that? I think for most sections there is now a lot of detail and citation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Classical philosophy
This is good stuff. What you are talking about with "teleological" reasoning is, of course, substantive reason. It is the reason of almost all pre-modern worldviews, that see meaning and purpose in every part of nature and human activity. It may be good to anticipate the later discussion a bit… I will think about how to do that.