Defining Reason and Rationality

@Reconstructo,

Partly true is wholly false, he tells me. That doesn't sound right to me. Sure, in a tautology calculator. But logos isn't like that. Half-truths can save our asses in life. Perhaps we all we have ever lived on is half-truth. Lord knows that the scientists are still hard at work. This forum is "proof" that the debate still rages.

So he didn't point out the supposed faults of your definition of "rational"? Hmm, that doesn't sound like it deserves the adjective "rational." It does however help to demonstrate that many supposed logicians deal in rhetoric. Logic is just rhetoric in priestly robes. Costuming helps with persuasion.

Ah man, what a role-player you are. Bring on the rhetoric of Shakespeare. Give me a metaphorician over a logician anyday. Except Wittgenstein knew at least the limits of logic. But back to Shakespeare: "All the worlds a stage and all the men and women merely players." They have their entrances and exits. They have their telos and their rhetoric. They have little swords and shields with which to play the hero.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;112488 wrote:

Partly true is wholly false, he tells me. That doesn't sound right to me. Sure, in a tautology calculator. But logos isn't like that. Half-truths can save our asses in life. Perhaps we all we have ever lived on is half-truth. Lord knows that the scientists are still hard at work. This forum is "proof" that the debate still rages.

So he didn't point out the supposed faults of your definition of "rational"? Hmm, that doesn't sound like it deserves the adjective "rational." It does however help to demonstrate that many supposed logicians deal in rhetoric. Logic is just rhetoric in priestly robes. Costuming helps with persuasion.

.

Is any of this relevant to: 1. whether it is true that "rational" is only a term of praise or not; and, 2. My argument that if it were only a term of praise it would not even be that, since for it to be a term of praise, it has to refer to a praise-worthy characteristic. It is a term of praise just because the person being praised has the characteristic of being rational.

@kennethamy,

Definitions of "Rationality" from the Web:

a decision making process in which one attempts to do the best one can for oneself using the resources at one's disposal economically and making tradeoffs that are internally consistent and will lead to increasing total gain

a logical opinion

a rational belief

a rational practice

a reasonable opinion

a trait which individuals or collectivities display in their thought, conduct or social institutions

agreeableness to reason

agreement with reason

due exercise of reason

good sense

man's basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues

mental state of a rational person characterized by (1) beliefs that are coherent (not contradictory) and compatible with the person's experience within a given context, (2) purposeful (intended to produce certain results) behavior guided by means versus ends analysis, (3) decision making based on cost-versus-benefit (pain versus gain) evaluation, and (4) an overall optimization approach (utility maximization) expressed in attempts to maximize advantages or gains and to minimize disadvantages or losses

objectivity

possession of reason

rationalness

reasonableness

sanity

the assumption that an individual will compare all possible combinations of goods and their prices when making purchases

the condition of being rational

the exercise of reason

the faculty of drawing logical inferences

the possession of reason

the possession of logic

the process of drawing logical inferences

the process of using logic to solve a problem

the process of using reason to solve a problem

the quality of being based on logic

the quality of being consistent with logic

the quality of being rational

the quality of being agreeable to reason

the state of being agreeable to reason

the state of being rational

the state of having good sense and sound judgment

the use of reason

the utilization of logic

thoughtfulness

Thought(fulness) for the Day: "Definition, rationality, and structure are ways of seeing, but they become prisons when they blank out other ways of seeing." A. R. Ammons

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;112569 wrote:

Thought(fulness) for the Day: "Definition, rationality, and structure are ways of seeing, but they become prisons when they blank out other ways of seeing." A. R. Ammons

To disclose a being here is perhaps to close a being there. How much can fit in an eye? Which vision is best? Are these the wrong questions to ask?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;112582 wrote:

To disclose a being here is perhaps to close a being there. How much can fit in an eye? Which vision is best? Are these the wrong questions to ask?

Hard to tell. .............

@Reconstructo,

We've all got our reasons for the way we define reason. What irrational itches are scratched by the sentences we associate with "rationality."? Vague words, like "truth" and "god." On planet Calculator these words are forbidden. Just as the Greek Geometers did not like Pi. Devouring mother, numbers that will not come into focus. Historicism nauseates mummies.

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;112569 wrote:

Definitions of "Rationality" from the Web:

a decision making process in which one attempts to do the best one can for oneself using the resources at one's disposal economically and making tradeoffs that are internally consistent and will lead to increasing total gain

a logical opinion

a rational belief

a rational practice

a reasonable opinion

a trait which individuals or collectivities display in their thought, conduct or social institutions

agreeableness to reason

agreement with reason

due exercise of reason

good sense

man's basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues

mental state of a rational person characterized by (1) beliefs that are coherent (not contradictory) and compatible with the person's experience within a given context, (2) purposeful (intended to produce certain results) behavior guided by means versus ends analysis, (3) decision making based on cost-versus-benefit (pain versus gain) evaluation, and (4) an overall optimization approach (utility maximization) expressed in attempts to maximize advantages or gains and to minimize disadvantages or losses

objectivity

possession of reason

rationalness

reasonableness

sanity

the assumption that an individual will compare all possible combinations of goods and their prices when making purchases

the condition of being rational

the exercise of reason

the faculty of drawing logical inferences

the possession of reason

the possession of logic

the process of drawing logical inferences

the process of using logic to solve a problem

the process of using reason to solve a problem

the quality of being based on logic

the quality of being consistent with logic

the quality of being rational

the quality of being agreeable to reason

the state of being agreeable to reason

the state of being rational

the state of having good sense and sound judgment

the use of reason

the utilization of logic

thoughtfulness

Thought(fulness) for the Day: "Definition, rationality, and structure are ways of seeing, but they become prisons when they blank out other ways of seeing." A. R. Ammons

Think there might be some common thread of meaning here? After all, "rationality" does not also mean, "fried potato". When, for instance, we ask whether animals are rational, which of these "definitions" have we in mind. All of them? Some of them? Just one of them? Or maybe something more general that unites them? Just because a word is used differently in different contexts does not mean that the word has different "definitions" in those contexts. If it did, you would have to have humongous dictionaries.

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 03:49 AM ----------

Reconstructo;112586 wrote:

We've all got our reasons for the way we define reason. What irrational itches are scratched by the sentences we associate with "rationality."? Vague words, like "truth" and "god." On planet Calculator these words are forbidden. Just as the Greek Geometers did not like Pi. Devouring mother, numbers that will not come into focus. Historicism nauseates mummies.

"We" do not define "reason" at all. Defining is done by the editors of dictionaries who arrive at their definitions by compiling and distilling how fluent speakers of the language use (not define) the term. When did you last define the term, "define"? But you seem to use it a lot.

@Reconstructo,

Fried potato is not on the list. It's a web of associated meanings, context driven. I don't think language is static enough to be ideally mapped. It's the pitcher that never runs dry, though sometimes maybe we want it to, to possess it rather than be possessed by it.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;112592 wrote:

Fried potato is not on the list. It's a web of associated meanings, context driven. I don't think language is static enough to be ideally mapped. It's the pitcher that never runs dry, though sometimes maybe we want it to, to possess it rather than be possessed by it.

How are they all "associated", and what is the "association"? That is the philosopher's question. It is the question that lies in the background of Hume's question, what does it mean to ask whether animals are rational. You have to dig deeper. Below the surface diversity. That is one of the things Socrates taught us, and Aristotle meant when he summarized Socrates's method as, "the search for definition".

@Reconstructo,

These words are pieces in a game. I suppose I feel as thought I know well enough how they work. To me, the important thing is to become conscious of their blurriness. I like to contrast logos to number for just this reason. I think the later Wittgenstein saw something that the earlier Wittgenstein didn't see, or didn't want to write about. I think we have to look at words along with the social practices that accompany them. Meaning is a web that stretches across all our human activities. There's an advantage to taking a holistic view of culture.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;112599 wrote:

These words are pieces in a game. I suppose I feel as thought I know well enough how they work. To me, the important thing is to become conscious of their blurriness. I like to contrast logos to number for just this reason. I think the later Wittgenstein saw something that the earlier Wittgenstein didn't see, or didn't want to write about. I think we have to look at words along with the social practices that accompany them. Meaning is a web that stretches across all our human activities. There's an advantage to taking a holistic view of culture.

Which words do you mean? We were talking of just one, "rationality", I thought. And it is a piece in a game, if you like that metaphor (and do not take the metaphor literally, which is always an error). But the question is, how does it move? Just because the knight traverses different squares on different moves, does not mean that the knight moves differently each time. Those were not different "definitions" of "reason" or "rationality" listed. Those were different uses, in different contexts, of the commonality among those uses. The thread that makes them all different uses of the same term and its meaning. We are talking, of course, of linguistic meaning. The term, "meaning" has a number of divergent uses. (See the famous book by I.A. Richards called, The Meaning of "Meaning".

@Reconstructo,

Certain words are like irrational numbers (which are numbers that do remind me of words.) Words are used more or less "correctly." The meaning of "rationality" is a probability curve. I feel like we've done a good job. If you have anything to add, please do. At some point a person must debate about the word in a specific text. A word without context is an abstraction, a sort of blurry ideal meaning. A chess knight has an exact and static meaning. So it's not a perfect metaphor.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;112605 wrote:

Certain words are like irrational numbers (which are numbers that do remind me of words.) Words are used more or less "correctly." The meaning of "rationality" is a probability curve. I feel like we've done a good job. If you have anything to add, please do. At some point a person must debate about the word in a specific text. A word without context is an abstraction, a sort of blurry ideal meaning. A chess knight has an exact and static meaning. So it's not a perfect metaphor.

If it were "perfect" it would not be a metaphor. It would be a literal description. Of course the term has to be used in context, and examined in context. But that does not mean that each word has a different meaning in each context. If that were true, it would not be the same word in one context that it is in a different context. So it is possible (and we do it) to abstract from the contexts to get to the common meaning.

@Reconstructo,

Well, the word alone is not meaningless, no. But the real power of language comes from its ability to create meaning by re-contextualizing words. Metaphors are just recontextualizations, transfers. It's like an analog synth. We've got grammar for patch cables. Translation is never perfect, I opine. The sound even is part of the sense. The rythum of the sentence even. Holism is an ideal like rationality, and one I subscribe to. Hegel makes a good point about abstraction. We consider something in isolation from the whole, we abstract it, yank it out. I vote for the broad view. I would rather watch an animals life cycle than dissect, but dissection is useful too. Sometimes we must dissect, consider an object in isolation.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;112588 wrote:

Think there might be some common thread of meaning here? After all, "rationality" does not also mean, "fried potato". When, for instance, we ask whether animals are rational, which of these "definitions" have we in mind. All of them? Some of them? Just one of them? Or maybe something more general that unites them? Just because a word is used differently in different contexts does not mean that the word has different "definitions" in those contexts. If it did, you would have to have humongous dictionaries.

We also have encyclopedias. Eco makes a big deal about dictionary vs. encyclopedia while discussing this very problem. He argues that language is better represented by an encyclopedia than a dictionary. It's messy.

But I too want to find something more general that unites them, something that is preserved between contexts. It is desirable to pick a meaning, to specialize so that we can move deeper into an actual discussion. The original post is perhaps too big a question too general.

Or perhaps we should go even more general and ask something like "What is Everything?" or "What is the Universe" or "What are all of the possible universes?"

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;112608 wrote:

If it were "perfect" it would not be a metaphor. It would be a literal description. Of course the term has to be used in context, and examined in context. But that does not mean that each word has a different meaning in each context. If that were true, it would not be the same word in one context that it is in a different context. So it is possible (and we do it) to abstract from the contexts to get to the common meaning.

So, it is not possible for the same word to have different meanings in different contexts?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112639 wrote:

So, it is not possible for the same word to have different meanings in different contexts?

We have to make the same distinction that dictionaries make between "senses of a term", and "meanings of a term". You will notice that dictionaries list under one meaning of a term, different senses (numbering them) and apart from that, the dictionaries will give different meanings of the term, a separate entry for each meaning. So, there will be different senses under one meaning of a term, and then there will be different senses grouped under a different meaning of the same term. Good dictionaries (The OED) give long account of how they distinguish among senses of the same meaning, and different meanings. I suppose "senses" can be called, "different shades of the same meaning". It is complicated.

By the way, and this is apart from what I have just written, we ought to take note of Wittgenstein's theory of the connections between the meanings of a term as a "family resemblance" in hia Philosophical Investigations.

Family resemblance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;112642 wrote:

We have to make the same distinction that dictionaries make between "senses of a term", and "meanings of a term". You will notice that dictionaries list under one meaning of a term, different senses (numbering them) and apart from that, the dictionaries will give different meanings of the term, a separate entry for each meaning. So, there will be different senses under one meaning of a term, and then there will be different senses grouped under a different meaning of the same term. Good dictionaries (The OED) give long account of how they distinguish among senses of the same meaning, and different meanings. I suppose "senses" can be called, "different shades of the same meaning". It is complicated.

This is probably something you should have noted from the getgo, as I don't think the people you were conversing with knew of such a distinction. I know I didn't.

Thank you for this information, though. I'm going to go look up these "senses", and try to build an understanding.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;112643 wrote:

This is probably something you should have noted from the getgo, as I don't think the people you were conversing with knew of such a distinction. I know I didn't.

Thank you for this information, though. I'm going to go look up these "senses", and try to build an understanding.

Possibly. But maybe people think things are too complicated as thay are.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;112647 wrote:

Possibly. But maybe people think things are too complicated as thay are.

Well, things are complicated. But many things are in philosophy. And we cannot ignore critical thought and be satisfied with a limited understanding (just what sort of philosophers would we be?!). Perhaps you, or someone else, should make a thread on these senses - we can't simply ignore the issue now because of the fear of complication!

Philosophy Forum

Defining Reason and Rationality

Quick Links

My Account

able2know