Talk:Reason

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)

---

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)

---

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.

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.

Lets 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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. Wikipedia: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)