Reason: Confidence In or Fear Of?

[coberst]

Reason: Confidence In or Fear Of?

Eureka, I now understand!

This morning I happened to turn on the TV at exactly 6 AM and my TV was tuned to Public Television and a program labeled Critical Thinking had just begun. The thirty minute program consisted of short answers by about a dozen individuals to the question “What is critical thinking”? The individuals questioned varied from judges, school teachers, lawyers, college professors, writers, etc.; all of whom one might expect to be knowledgeable about the subject of critical thinking.

One interviewee said that to convince anyone to change their mind about anything I must first comprehend their fear of changing their mind. I thought about this for a few minutes and like a cartoon character, a light bulb appeared above my head. Here was the answer to the question I have been pondering for decades

Perhaps the most important thing we must comprehend about human nature is that humans fear a loss of self determination; humans fear that reason will inhibit their self-determination.

I grew up in a Catholic family and went to Catholic schools. The nuns taught us that we had a conscience (the moral sense of the blameworthiness of ones own behavior). This conscience would, when properly trained, help to keep us from doing bad stuff. Before we went to confession we were to ‘examine our conscience’; our conscience kept a firm record of these misdeeds that we must confess to the priest.

My understanding convinces me that most people fear the effects of reason. Many people fear reason just as a Catholic child fears conscience. Many people fear that reason will deprive them of self determination and certainty. Such a fear can be assuaged only by developing a confidence in reason.

Do you agree with my understanding or do you fear that I have lost my reason?

[one_raven]

I don't think it has anything to do with fear of self-determination.
That is likely a projection on your part.

Fear of losing certainty, on the other hand, I would certainly go along with.

Many people cling to religion because it is their rock in an uncertain, unstable world.
To offer them reason that contradicts what they have always held onto as pure, unadulterated truth scares the hell out of them (or I suppose scares the hell into them).

No matter what happens in the world, no matter how insignificant you are, the one thing you can retain control over is yourself.
If you lose your faith in your own judgement, you lose control of yourself.

[coberst]

Exactly my point. If we lose faith in our judgment we lose self-determination. If we have not developed confidence in reason then we fear reason because we fear loss of self-determination.

[one_raven]

Interesting idea.
Maybe...

Does an imbecile not have self determination?

[Baron Max]

If we lose faith in our judgment we lose self-determination. If we have not developed confidence in reason then we fear reason because we fear loss of self-determination.

To fear losing something, don't we have to actually have it in the first place? I don't believe that we, humans, actually and truly have "self-determination". And in reality, to make that statement means that we must first prove that we do have "self-determination". Can you do that?

Perhaps we delude ourselves into thinking that we do, thus fear losing that illusions? Humans often delude themselves, and I'm thinking that this is just one more of many examples of it.

Baron Max

[Baron Max]

Does an imbecile not have self determination?

I don't think any human, or any animal for that matter, has self-determination. There are simply too many outside influences, that are NOT within our control, that determine much (perhaps all?) of what we do and think. No, we don't have self-dtermination ...it's a grandiose human self-illusion.

Baron Max

[one_raven]

Baron Max,
I do believe we have self-determination, and we can get into that if you wish, but that aside for now, we don't have to truly have anything to fear losing it.
As you said, if we beleive we have it, we certainly can fear losing it.

If someone believes they have a stable government, but they do not, they can certainly fear losing it, just as one example.

[coberst]

Interesting idea.
Maybe...

Does an imbecile not have self determination?

I suspect it is all random chance with an imbecile. I suspect it is like throwing a dart at the board as to which direction to go.

[coberst]

To fear losing something, don't we have to actually have it in the first place? I don't believe that we, humans, actually and truly have "self-determination". And in reality, to make that statement means that we must first prove that we do have "self-determination". Can you do that?

Perhaps we delude ourselves into thinking that we do, thus fear losing that illusions? Humans often delude themselves, and I'm thinking that this is just one more of many examples of it.

Baron Max

Everyone with normal ability will pick up some slight bit of knowledge through social osmosis. This knowledge is sufficient for the individual to fear, or perhaps anxiety is a better word, that which they have only a slight hint of. It might be like hearing a noise in the night.

[Cyperium]

I agree with you! It's nice that you've got that insight.

If you believe in God, then have confidence in reason (you don't need to test reality all the time, but feel confident that if you reason you will not be hindered in your quest to approach God in values and actions, and if you have a good understanding of things (as you might have since you got this insight) then you don't need to be bothered by reason of knowledge).

We should have confidence in reason. As long as we are reasonable and that we are doing the best we can. Some things happen though that seems without reason, but do the best you can of that situation then, and be reasonable about it.

[shakushinnen]

Hi Coberst,
.... Yes, fear. I think you're on to something. Seems to be a majour motivator in human actions. Along the same line, another reason it's difficult to change people's minds is that they identify very strongly with what they profess (believe), often to the point that, if you question what they believe, you challenge their image of who they are. This is very traumatic for most people.
On the otherside of the coin, it's probably a good idea to not identify too strongly with one's beliefs, opinions. Not only because it saves one the stress of having to constantly defend oneself, but because there's really nothing magical, or profound, or wonderful about them. They are the machinations of a limited organ (our brain), housed in a creature with a perceptually challenged view of the world, i.e. we don't know much for sure.
John

[coberst]

Shakushinnen

There is stress associated with speaking one's conclusions. However, if only those who have no knowledge about how to reach a conclusion are the only ones to speak then we end up with the mess that we are now in. If people who comprehend the importance of reason do not voice their conclusions then we can never begin to conquer our strong anti-intellectual tendencies.

In a democracy if those who know about the science of reason do not press the point then we are left only with the voices of emotion.

[Sauna]

The political need is to be critical enough to know when to be quiet and when to lie.

[shakushinnen]

Hi Coberst,
You make a lot of sense, but I can't convincingly argue that reason is what motivates my actions. In fact, I'm inclined to think that compassion (not the soapy kind) is probably the best we can do for each other, and ourselves. You speak of 'the science of reason'. Is there such a science that one can look into? Please don't take this as argumentative, but how do you define reason?
John

[Sauna]

I concur with shakushinnen, with the terrible suspicion of immaturity, of a shortage of the knowing of what actually happens when a conclusion is proposed.

[Cyperium]

I suspect it is all random chance with an imbecile. I suspect it is like throwing a dart at the board as to which direction to go.

But you are wrong, since the imbecile is the image you have of him in your mind.

It should never go that far. Let go and reset.

[coberst]

Hi Coberst,
You make a lot of sense, but I can't convincingly argue that reason is what motivates my actions. In fact, I'm inclined to think that compassion (not the soapy kind) is probably the best we can do for each other, and ourselves. You speak of 'the science of reason'. Is there such a science that one can look into? Please don't take this as argumentative, but how do you define reason?
John

What is reason? What is belief?

What do we do when we reason? I would say as a minimum that to reason is to conceptualize and to draw inferences from that conceptualization. All creatures, the tadpole and the human, must have this minimum capacity to reason. The tadpole must categorize ‘eat no eat’ and ‘friend no friend’. Categorizing is the first step in conceptualizing and inferring and thus reasoning.

I think that it might be worth while to think of how the most primitive creature might conceptualize. Take a primitive sea creature that has only the ability to perceive light and shadow. That creature has a zone of shadow detection let us say of 5 feet. In this detection zone it can distinguish too big or not too big for eating and decide to get away from the shadow. Perhaps it has another zone of one foot that it can decide friend or foe or eat and not eat. In this zone it must infer to get away or to chase after.

From this we might decide that conception is a structuring process where containers are an important element in conceptualization. A container might be an important element in the imagination of the creature. The creature has the ability to infer based upon a container schema. There is an inner and outer and a border between in and out. The creatures must be able to deal with container schemas and make inferences within this schema.

Also the creature must have some sort of schema for following or predicting the path of something perceived. The creature must be able to infer is the shadow going this way or that way.

So conceptualizing consists of a number of standard forms for organizing the elements of a perception so that the creature can draw inferences. The human has this same capability only greatly more sophisticated. This conception and inference process is the foundation of reasoning.

Where does the human capacity of belief fit into this capacity? This is, in my judgment, the fundamentals of reasoning about matters of fact, matters dealing with perceived input. I think that matters of belief are abstract matters and to go there is a much longer walk.

My short answer is that beliefs are abstract ideas and I would say that abstract ideas are beliefs.

When we reason about abstract matters, some if not all objects reasoned about are abstract objects and not fact objects. Our input generally is mostly abstract ideas and our out put are generally abstract. I think of this process as much like atoms joining together to make molecules and molecules joining together to make compounds. Our abstract ideas join together to make beliefs, i.e. abstract ideas.

I am inclined to say that knowledge consists of matters of fact and beliefs are abstract ideas. Math is all about abstract ideas and religion is all about abstract ideas. Some abstract ideas can be verified by deduction others cannot. However, math is a closed system and its ‘truth’ is the truth of a closed system. Its truth is a matter of definition.

I suspect we might say that all abstract ideas are beliefs. When I speak of the ‘laws’ of nature I am speaking about facts but when I speak about ‘laws’ of morality I am speaking about abstract ideas.

[Sauna]

My short answer is that beliefs are abstract ideas and I would say that abstract ideas are beliefs.

My short reply:

I don't believe you.

[shakushinnen]

Hi Coberst,
I think I understand what you mean. So would you say that it is the analytical process or reasoning that guides our thouhts and actions, or some other process, such as emotions.
John

[coberst]

Hi Coberst,
I think I understand what you mean. So would you say that it is the analytical process or reasoning that guides our thouhts and actions, or some other process, such as emotions.
John

I suspect that we are always thinking and it takes an act of will to set our thoughts onto a specific experience or memory. Then we use our knowledge of logical thinking, that would be in some kind of algorithm form, to guide our process of analysis. I think that we develop habits of rational thought that are called forth by the will to guide the process of thought. I imagine it might be like our stored habit of hitting a backhand in tennis. Our will makes our intention and our habits take over and we used "programmed", algorithms to perform the intention.