PDA

View Full Version : What is your definition of the word "reason"?



Pro-Alpine
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006, 11:55 PM
My description would be "the basis of a decision"

Moody
Thursday, June 29th, 2006, 05:34 PM
My description would be "the basis of a decision"

This would cover the word only in the sense of a 'reason why' etc.,
i.e., I made this or that decision 'because of such and such' etc., etc.,

So I may look at alternatives before acting, choosing one of the alternatives rationally, and then act upon it.

More often than not, we act instinctively, and then try to rationalise afterwards.

Much reason is retrospective.

So 'Reason' also implies the ability to be logical, analytical, clinical.

Here it seems to be antithetical to 'emotional', 'instinctual', impulsive.

Reason is also related to scepticism and experimentation.

Pro-Alpine
Wednesday, July 12th, 2006, 01:55 AM
A reason is a logical consequence follows from an logical action, example: The tree was chopped down for the reason that in the way.

then why is the word so often used for natural consequences? example: The television won't start for some reason.

A reason is the logic for actions, decisions or convictions, not natural occurrences or effects.

Siegfried
Wednesday, July 12th, 2006, 09:01 AM
A reason is a logical consequence follows from an logical action, example: The tree was chopped down for the reason that in the way.

then why is the word so often used for natural consequences? example: The television won't start for some reason.

'The television won't start for some reason' doesn't use 'reason' as a natural consequence, but rather as a natural cause. :)


A reason is the logic for actions, decisions or convictions, not natural occurrences or effects.

It's projecting human rationality into natural processes.

Some dictionaries include definitions of 'reason' such as "An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence".

Sigurd
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 03:11 AM
Wittgenstein, that destroyer of philosophy as it were would have relished in this thread. He would have simply explained it away with the misuse of the same words to explain different circumstances, hinted that even though there might be two doors that look exactly the same they are not of the same genus and would have called it fin. ... Umm, is it evident that I am not a huge fan of his work?

Now, as to the actual topic at hand, this is not as easy as it seems. In my humble opinion, Moody has made an excellent observation as to the basic principle that underlies "reason":



So 'Reason' also implies the ability to be logical, analytical, clinical.

Here I would like to add another facette to this. It is evident that such an explanation will be quite satisfactory to the pure logicist. For all cynicism, the logicist is a master at reasoning.

But is he the only philosopher? The logicist evidently is analytical, clinical. But is one who transcends the realms of logic not one who also interprets, and criticises?

Hence, there can be two types of reason: It can surely be the realisation of natural consequences, and the analysis of such.

But does not every student of Language or any other Art know that a full rationale is made of statement/understanding, analysis and evaluation?

It takes a different type of philosopher to make his own presumptions after making a clean analysis. Hence, to him it is not only the realisation of natural consequences, but also to know the further implications of those consequences to his conjecture.

Hence, one who possesses reason in that respect also needs a certain sense of foresight, even if such foresight comes in retrospect.