REASON
Contents:
The law of identity leads to the conclusion that the only means to validate our knowledge of reality is through reason, i.e. the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by our senses. This also means that logic, i.e. the art of non-contradictory identification of facts based on a set of premises, is — by its very nature — the valid means of acquiring and validating knowledge beyond the perceptual level. Note that reason refers to the mental faculty, while logic refers to the method of applying this mental faculty.
Reason is, in essence, the use of concepts to grasp reality. Note that this presupposes the use of the senses to provide the material for concept-formation. We have discussed concept-formation and the steps that lead up to it in the previous sections, where we have identified that an abstraction, be it a unit or a concept, is in essence the selective focus of sense-perception, i.e. of the material provided by the senses. We have also validated sense-perception as nothing but objective reality grasped in a particular, objective way. Hence, we see that the tools of reason, i.e. concepts, are valid, i.e. they refer to objective reality.
Note that the validity of reason and logic is derived from the law of identity itself. To demonstrate this, assume there is a thing X, such that knowledge on X is “beyond reason”. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by our senses. Note that we have identified valid integration (through the form of valid abstraction, such as through units, concepts, generalisations, principles, etc.) as an extension of identification. If X is beyond reason, then X cannot be identified. This either means X does not exist, or X is extrasensory. We have discussed extrasensory entities in the section on sense-perception; to make any claims about such an entity is to make claims about nothing, in essence. In other words, as long as something can be detected, the validity of reason holds in learning about it, and learning about something that can never be detected is learning about nothing.
Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification of facts based on a set of premises, and is the method of applying reason. In other words, it is, in essence, an extension of the process of identification, and hence, it has only one core principle: the law of identity. As long as the premises are true, the validity of logic holds when deriving facts from them.
To expand on the above point, logic adheres to its inputs and to non-contradiction between inputs and any identified facts. So, when applied to reality, logic will adhere to the known facts and assumptions (which are clearly identified as assumptions, not known facts), and will ensure non-contradiction between them and the conclusions identified from them, ultimately expanding and validating my knowledge of reality. Assumptions or complexity increase the likelihood of conclusions being false, but logic, due to its nature, is a self-correcting method.
The above conclusion does not mean the results of any reasoning process are always valid; humans are neither omniscient nor infallible. However, the nature of reason is such that it provides you not only the means to discover the facts of reality, but also the means to identify and correct any errors made in pursuit of such knowledge. In other words, it is the only means of validating our knowledge. The application of reason can range from trivial to near-impossible in terms of complexity, but its basis, i.e. the axioms of existence, remains constant.
We must be careful not to disregard the value of other mental faculties, such as instinct, intuition, imagination, emotion, etc. All these faculties have their own value in our lives as rational beings, and they can often be used to facilitate our reasoning. However, they can never substitute reason as a means to validate our knowledge of reality.
The aforementioned faculties may, in certain circumstances, substitute more extensive and intensive (i.e. broader and deeper) kinds of reasoning as a means to act with limited information, time or resources, provided that such a substitution is itself rational. For instance, if a split second decision must be made, it is irrational to try to form a complex chain of logical inferences if doing so will prevent you from acting at all. In such cases, instinct and intuition, especially if well-developed, i.e. if developed through the practice of rational principles, are invaluable cognitive capacities.
Furthermore, if our instincts, intuition and emotions are well-developed through the practice of rational principles and we know that they are indeed so, it is irrational to re-evaluate our thoughts, feelings and decisions for every well-understood case (unless we see a reason to re-evaluate), e.g. familiar tasks, situations, problems, etc.
Lastly, the depth and breadth of your application of reason depends on the context. For example, when indulging in certain types of enjoyable activities, thinking more deeply than your feelings would defeat the purpose of the activity, as it would take you away from the pleasure of the moment and into a needlessly strenuous exercise. Here, rational evaluation would come before and not during the activity.
Hence, the pursuit of rational principles does not imply the rejection of other mental faculties, but demands that we use them in accordance with rational judgement.
Intuition consists of subconsciously formed and/or retained mental associations between conscious units (e.g. perceptions, conceptions, memories, emotions etc.). The elements of the association (e.g. the relationships between two conscious units) could be defined consciously or subconsciously. These mental associations can be done using practised reasoning (which may or may not be valid), reflex judgement based on memory, or it can perhaps be derived from instincts, evolutionary or otherwise.
NOTE: An instinct is an automatic motive for action.
Hence, while it can be used to facilitate reason, it cannot replace it, because reason — due to its nature — is far more intensive and extensive, i.e. deeper and broader in its scope of application. Moreover, the validity of intuition depends on the validity of its origin; such validity can only be determined through reason (which can and often do involve direct observations from practical tests, experiences, experiments and even some uninformed exploration).
NOTE: Instinct and intuition by their nature imply some rapid (subconscious) assessment of inputs to your mind, and in general—given that the subconscious mind is known to be a powerful processor of data in many ways—it is wise to explore what is indicated by instinct or intuition.
Hence, it is not irrational to follow your instinct and intuition provided (1) you cannot or need not deliberate (see the note below), and (2) you validate the instinct and intuition with reason when you can. Instinct and intuition are vital mechanisms as they tap the power of the subconscious mind, thus vastly increasing your ability to process data and act in reality. Thus, using your instinct and intuition wisely is rational.
NOTE: You need not deliberate if you have objective certainty within the given context; how certainty can be achieved is a separate topic discussed in “Certainty” from Knowledge and Certainty.
Emotion, from what I understand, is an immediate end result of a subconscious evaluation of a situation, wherein the evaluation is based on internalised values. Hence, emotions may lead to knowledge as observable end results, but they cannot form knowledge. Note that while emotions are not means of cognition, I am not saying they are not valuable to us. On the contrary, they have immense, indispensable value as (1) the feedback we receive, either reinforcing and enabling the pursuit of our values, or indicating an issue in said values, and (2) the reward and affirmation for life itself, wherein we experience life as an end in itself through emotions, both positive and negative (each with its own uses).
Faith is not a way of knowing, but a way of asserting assumptions as truth. Hence, as a way of knowing, it is invalid. If evidence and reasoning is provided to an assertion that either validates it as a fact or presents it as an assumption and not a known fact, the assertion is no longer in the domain of faith.
Note that “trust” and “faith” are not synonymous, although they are often used in that manner. Trust is akin to confidence, i.e. an assumption on the action of an entity based on past evidence or knowledge about the entity’s nature (the acceptable level of confidence depends on the context). The more substantive the evidence, the stronger the trust. Faith, on the other hand, does not demand any evidence, only the acceptance of an assertion as truth.
Similarly, note that “conviction” (including “absolute conviction”) and “faith” are not synonymous, although they may have similar effects on the subconscious. Conviction can and must draw from self-evident truths and rigorous reason, while faith requires acceptance beyond reason.
Imagination is the ability to consciously rearrange the contents of our mind. Without regard to evidence and reasoning, it does not necessarily correspond to reality. Hence, it is a valid way of knowing reality only if (1) the contents used are defined and refer or correspond to reality in some form, and (2) the rules by which the contents are combined are grounded in reason. If imagination meets these conditions, then it can be considered an extension of a reasoning process. This is not to say that imagination has no value beyond being a tool for reasoning. On the contrary, imagination is a vital part of enhancing our experience of life and the vitality of our mind. Imagination can help:
It can be said that sense perception, reason, memory and, in particular cases, intuition and imagination, are the only valid means of seeking knowledge and/or acting with knowledge, with emotion being a possible input to a process of knowledge formation (especially with respect to introspection) and a guide to action within a rationally delimited context, but not a method of knowledge formation itself nor a guide to action long-range.
An important point to note is that reason alone is nothing without sense perception and memory, since there would be no content to draw from. Reason is also far less potent than it could be without at least some intuition and imagination, provided that (1) the results of intuition are validated through reason, and that (2) the imagination is grounded in reason. When speaking of introspection, i.e. reason applied to the contents of our minds, emotions serve as essential observations, as they are the end results of split-second value judgements arising from internalised premises. Hence, I reject the idea that rationality should be practised with little to no consideration to the other faculties of the mind; doing so would be irrational.
Reason and other mental faculties are not necessarily mutually exclusive. So, for instance, the pursuit of reason and the pursuit of emotionally driven goals can and must go hand-in-hand, if your values are rationally integrated. “Rational” does not mean “passionless”. Indeed, passion for life and reason must go hand-in-hand, since reason is our most powerful and indispensable tool to survive and thrive, though it alone is not enough. In other words, it is necessary but not sufficient in our pursuit to live our lives. This does not mean it could or should be abandoned at times, but rather, it must be pursued relentlessly in a manner that is integrated with our other faculties.
To expand on the last point…
To be rational is not to only use reason in favour of every other mental faculty, but rather, to use reason as the ultimate and overarching means of cognition that is integrated in a non-contradictory (i.e. rational) way with the use of the other mental faculties. Other faculties can and do have uses, both within cognition (in a certain context) and apart from cognition (i.e. in other areas of life, such as direct or recreated experience or extremely time-bound action). Note again, however, that all areas of life — cognitive or otherwise — must be integrated in a non-contradictory way if life in reality is to be the standard (this standard shall be proved in ethics).
NOTE: Cognition means knowing reality and, by extension, making choices in reality, since efficacious conscious action presupposes efficacious cognition.