A _fundamental_ flaw in Rand's definition of Reason

[organon1973]

In the Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand wrote (and rightly so) that "nothing is outside the province of reason". However, she defined reason as the following:

"Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."

Leaving aside the fact that sensory perception (sense-based identification) is not excluded by this definition ("identified ... by man's senses"), and is not a rational process, does anyone see a problem here?

[Grames]

That is a good succinct definition. I read it that it does exclude sense perception. Reason is rooted in sense perception, but essentially apart from it because it is voluntary and willful.

What is the flaw you see?

[gags]

In the Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand wrote (and rightly so) that "nothing is outside the province of reason". However, she defined reason as the following:

"Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."

Leaving aside the fact that sensory perception (sense-based identification) is not excluded by this definition ("identified ... by man's senses"), and is not a rational process, does anyone see a problem here?

How does the fact that sensory perception is an automatic process (Ms. Rand acknowledges this) and not a rational one cause a contradiction with her definition of reason? Reason is applied to our sensory perceptions, thus those perceptions are not outside the province of reason.

[brian0918]

If you do not mis-read her quote, there is no problem.

Reason is a mental faculty, which identifies the material provided by our senses, and then integrates that material into our conceptual hierarchy.

That is the only way that sentence could be read.

Instead, you misquote to construct a straw man:

"Reason is...the...material provided by man's senses."

[brian0918]

So to sum up - the solitary reason why you are not an Objectivist is because you misread a quote of Rand's.

[Capitalism Forever]

If the word "man" were not in the definition, it could also apply to the perceptual apparatus of animals. Is that the problem you see with the definition?

If yes, my answer is: The word "man" IS in there, so the definition makes clear that what we mean is the kind of identification and integration specific to man. Objectivist epistemology provides a very clear explanation of what the difference between the perceptual-level consciousness of brutes and the conceptual consciousness of man is; if you have understood that difference, there is no way you can read the definition in any other way than as referring to the sum of the perceptual and conceptual faculties.

I'm curious about what alternative definition you would propose, though, if you think Miss Rand's one is incorrect.

[RationalBiker]

Leaving aside the fact that sensory perception (sense-based identification) is not excluded by this definition ("identified ... by man's senses"), and is not a rational process, does anyone see a problem here?

Nope, but if you do it would help us to explain if you said what problem you see.

[Tyco]

In the Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand wrote (and rightly so) that "nothing is outside the province of reason". However, she defined reason as the following:

"Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."

Leaving aside the fact that sensory perception (sense-based identification) is not excluded by this definition ("identified ... by man's senses"), and is not a rational process, does anyone see a problem here?

Are you you referring to material not provided by the senses? ie. one's own ideas/thoughts

[SapereAude]

Are you you referring to material not provided by the senses? ie. one's own ideas/thoughts

But even one's own thoughts and ideas exist only in relation to material provided by the senses.

Anything you think of is based on something that exists and your sense of it.

[A is A]

In the Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand wrote (and rightly so) that "nothing is outside the province of reason". However, she defined reason as the following:

"Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."

Leaving aside the fact that sensory perception (sense-based identification) is not excluded by this definition ("identified ... by man's senses"), and is not a rational process, does anyone see a problem here?

It is customary to provide evidence for a supposition when asking a question. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT YOU SEE?

[organon1973]

Her definition entirely excludes the facts of which one is introspectively aware, which are nonetheless facts although they cannot be perceived with the senses. These include, but are not limited to: thoughts; beliefs; evaluations; values; emotions; desires.

[organon1973]

But even one's own thoughts and ideas exist only in relation to material provided by the senses.

Anything you think of is based on something that exists and your sense of it.

Hello Quo,

This is not relevant: although they can be prompted by sensory concerns, they still have an existence that is wholly consciousness-based. And even emotions can be triggered by wholly 'internal' data, e.g., by a memory.

Note, in this context, she also restricts productive work to material manifestation -- something that exists in the world (see her re productivity) -- by which, a psychotherapist, engaged solely in therapeutic practice, does not qualify as productive.

I am unsure whether I should say this, but will in any case, so that you might know what I think of Miss Rand: in terms of historical value and importance, she competes only with Aristotle.

[organon1973]

Are you you referring to material not provided by the senses? ie. one's own ideas/thoughts

We have a winner. See my post above.

[Jake_Ellison]

Her definition entirely excludes the facts of which one is introspectively aware, which are nonetheless facts although they cannot be perceived with the senses. These include, but are not limited to: thoughts; beliefs; evaluations; values; emotions; desires.

You're a smart kid. Learn more, pretend to know everything even though you don't less. This kind of arrogance will be your undoing. It affects your work ethic, and your motivation to actually learn things.

Without a ruthlessly honest commitment to introspection—to the conceptual identification of your inner states—you will not discover what you feel, what arouses the feeling, and whether your feeling is an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception. The men who scorn or dread introspection take their inner states for granted, as an irreducible and irresistible primary, and let their emotions determine their actions. This means that they choose to act without knowing the context (reality), the causes (motives), and the consequences (goals) of their actions. (Ayn Rand Lexicon, entry on Introspection)

Note, in this context, she also restricts productive work to material manifestation -- something that exists in the world (see her re productivity) -- by which, a psychotherapist, engaged solely in therapeutic practice, does not qualify as productive.

Your speculation is not only baseless, it is contradicted every step of the way, by pretty much anything she wrote about the field of psychology, introspection, self-esteem, pride, emotions, the sub-conscious etc... You're pretending she just brushed all those subjects aside, based on a single sentence you're running with here. You're either doing it in the face of overwhelming evidence against your speculations, or you never bothered informing yourself of the existence of all that evidence.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[organon1973]

Pardon? Regardless of what she says here, her formal definition of reason is what it is -- and is not consistent either with this quote (which is fine), or with her statement in the Romantic Manifesto (again, "nothing is outside the province of reason").

I hesitate to speculate as to what caused her to formulate her definition as she did, at the time; rather, why it came to her in that way. Rendering it invulnerable to mysticism/subjectivism in any respect, given the then-present epistemological corruption, and the state of psychology? No, I will not speculate here.

(Behaviorism, as a psychological school, is, by the way, fundamentally flawed due to the fact that the behavior of a conscious organism cannot be understood without reference to its consciousness.)

No, I am not an Objectivist, though I would describe myself as one were I to know of no errors of any kind in her written philosophy. But even then, even were that the case, my primary context is that of: Reality, Reason, and the Right; and, in relation to philosophy, I would call myself first and foremost a rational philosopher, and a student/adherent of Rational Philosophy.

[Jake_Ellison]

Pardon? Regardless of what she says here, her formal definition of reason is what it is -- and is not consistent either with this quote (which is fine), or with her statement in the Romantic Manifesto (again, "nothing is outside the province of reason").

I hesitate to speculate as to what caused her to formulate her definition as she did, at the time; rather, why it came to her in that way. Rendering it invulnerable to mysticism/subjectivism in any respect, given the then-present epistemological corruption, and the state of psychology?

No, it was a far more objective and fundamental reason than that. One's emotions have no bearing on the nature of reality, nor should they have a bearing on one's evaluation of it.

You should read the quote I provided more carefully, before you conclude that "it is fine" (it fits into your view of epistemology). It clearly states that rational men don't take their emotions to be facts of reality to be treated as a primary, in their quest to evaluate reality, the same way one treats the product of one's senses. Feelings are an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception. They are not to be treated as facts. Reason and emotions are separate (but that doesn't mean emotions should be discarded, only that rational evaluations should be based on the material of the senses, not emotions)

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. How it does that, how it accounts for one's feelings etc is not the same as what it does. But it is baseless speculation to say that therefor reason, by Rand's definition, does not account for feelings. If you read up on the details, you'll find that it does, and not only that, it is explained exactly how it should do it.

By the way, a psychoterapist also doesn't give advice to his patients based on his own feelings, he does it by integrating the material of his senses (What his patients tell him. He doesn't feel his patients' feelings, he hears their description of it.)

Edited December 20, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[A is A]

Her definition entirely excludes the facts of which one is introspectively aware, which are nonetheless facts although they cannot be perceived with the senses. These include, but are not limited to: thoughts; beliefs; evaluations; values; emotions; desires.

That is a gross misunderstanding and is false on the face of it. If you understood Objectivism, you'd know that a concept is NOT its definition.

The definition of elephant is "any of a family (Elephantidae, the elephant family) of thickset usually extremely large nearly hairless herbivorous mammals that have a snout elongated into a muscular trunk and two incisors in the upper jaw developed especially in the male into large ivory tusks and that include two living forms and various extinct relatives" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elephant). Nowhere does it state that it has bones in its body, has 2 lungs, gives birth to babies, digests its food, etc., all of which are facts although they cannot be perceived with the senses when you just look at an elephant.

The fact that one is aware of things that are not directly perceived by the senses does not mean that reason is not functioning. There are abstractions from concretes and abstractions from abstractions.

And lastly, unless your ideas are floating abstractions (which seems to be the case in your understanding of reason), "thoughts; beliefs; evaluations; values; emotions; desires" are all reducible to directly perceivable things out there in the world, in exactly the same manner that concepts such as freedom, truth, running, furniture, or any other valid concepts are. So unless you are to maintain that YOUR "thoughts; beliefs; evaluations; values; emotions; desires" are not in reality, by what process do you claim to know that you have these concepts and experiences in your mind?

[N/A]

What? No one brings up the analytic-synthetic dichotomy? Crazies.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/analytic..._dichotomy.html

Objectivism rejects that there is any thought outside of a sensory context. Johnny said 'Existence is identity; consciousness is identification.' There is awareness fundamentally because there are objects to identify. A consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction, so a thought (and then feeling) without sensory roots is thrown into the sea as well.

Your volition is whether or not you will be-aware and of what, or not.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/imagination.html

Whoo!

Edited December 20, 2009 by N/A

[organon1973]

Neither of you address the issue here. (In general, do not take intros such as this as jabs in any way -- if your concern is reason, then interpret all I write/say in a benevolent context.)

You speak of the referents of a concept (which are objective and unchanging), versus its definition (which is contextual, wholly epistemological)? You mention that there is no thought, outside of a sensory context? Neither of these have any bearing on the case. There are things that exist inside the mind, that exist solely in the context of consciousness, and her definition -- of Reason -- limits the field of that faculty to only sensory data. But "nothing is outside the province of reason."

What is a valid definition of Reason? Try this: Reason is the faculty that integrates and identifies that which is (with the understood context that that which is, is grasped by objective means).

(In general, addressed in general: what is your first concern? Is it Reality, or her written philosophy? What do you think her first concern would be? Challenge every word she wrote, when it is called for, and know that she would love you the more for it. Pardon, unsure this parenthetical should be here. In any case -- hitting 'Add Reply'.)

[N/A]

There are no things which exist in the context of consciousness without sensory roots. Run the breakdown on consciousness any way you want, the mix is still always a sensory composition fundamentally. Your feelings, judgements, etc, exist with an inherent tie to the world no matter what nightmare or clarity you bring to the world. So on the repetitive remix, that means your thoughts and feelings always refer to specific sensory data as processed by you. It is your choice (mine too), the degree to which I evict myself from the realm of reason, but it is especially within the scope of reason to recognize its existence or lack thereof in another. So volition philosophically scrapes the edge of "you can't explain the irrational," but it is a philosophical truth that irrationality's specific nature is a void of awareness in contrast to its presence, which probably has an easy scientific correspondence if anyone ever decides to get down to the nitty-gritty neuroscience.

There isn't anything you're integrating that wasn't initially the integration of sensory data.

Edited December 20, 2009 by N/A

[Ifat Glassman]

In the Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand wrote (and rightly so) that "nothing is outside the province of reason". However, she defined reason as the following:

"Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."

Leaving aside the fact that sensory perception (sense-based identification) is not excluded by this definition ("identified ... by man's senses"), and is not a rational process, does anyone see a problem here?

There is no such thing as "sense-based identification". The most the senses take you is to perceive things as entities, but not what entity something is - that requires concepts. By "the material provided by man's senses" she means the percepts. You seem to be taking that step outside "sense perception" and creating yourself a problem. I think her definition is perfect. What is the problem that you see with it, other than this thing about send-perception?

[Ifat Glassman]

Her definition entirely excludes the facts of which one is introspectively aware, which are nonetheless facts although they cannot be perceived with the senses. These include, but are not limited to: thoughts; beliefs; evaluations; values; emotions; desires.

Oh, that's the problem that you see. That's a good one. But the source of one's thoughts, emotions etc' is the external world (combined with the nature of human cognition). Granted, identifying an emotion is identifying something which did not come (at the moment of occurring) from the senses. It might be a reaction to a memory or some abstract thought.

Still, big deal - this is why you are "not an Objectivist"? What is an Objectivist, in your eyes? I heard Peikoff giving a great description, which is: agreeing with the fundamentals of her philosophy and living by them. (Just a side topic)

[N/A]

[/delete this]

Edited December 20, 2009 by N/A

[organon1973]

There isn't anything you're integrating that wasn't initially the integration of sensory data.

How about the nature of anger -- or love -- or despair -- and the causes thereof?

[N/A]

Emotions are the conscious state, in the art of meaningful living. The cause is the moment (situational context) and everything it implies to you. But you won't feel anything about existence unless you sense a thing, and then have some sense of (your) life regarding it.

The alternative is that things have meaning to an individual apart from an experience or knowledge of the things themselves. Good or bad for no reason / for being nothing in particular. An act of identification entailing a thing's importance to your life would be the typical emotional stab, I think.

It really sucks that there isn't anything to be aware of and feel anything about, and for that matter it's doubly depressing that I won't be able to do anything with my life because there is no life in this void of nothingness. Come to think of it, how did I even learn these words to contemplate the meaninglessness of nothingness and nonexperience anyway?

Edited December 20, 2009 by N/A