Why don't they apply reason to their entire life?

[Amber]

Why is it that, whenever I mention reason, people seem to think it only applies to people solving some kind of mathematical problem?

Reason is anything and everything man has to do to understand the world around him .... from knowing what color "blue" is to understanding how a combustion engine works.

Just wondering.

[it's "reason," not "resaon" -GC]

Edited February 16, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist

[JMeganSnow]

Why is it that, whenever I mention resaon, people seem to think it only applies to people solving some kind of mathematical problem?

. . .

Just wondering.

Too much exposure to "follow your heart, not your head" and similar hogwash. Have you read The Return of the Primitive yet?

[Amber]

I guess what I am asking is: why don't they understand the broader application of reason? Reason does not necessarily involve calculus, algebra, engineering, or heavy duty math problems. Yet this is the automatic assumption whenever I bring it up.

And I am also kind of looking for a better definition of terms. While solving a calculus problem obviously involves reason, in that you have to understand the principles of calculus, you have to understand the problem right in front of you, etc., but actually SOLVING it seems more like "logic" to me.

[JMeganSnow]

I guess what I am asking is:  why don't they understand the broader application of reason?  Reason does not necessarily involve calculus, algebra, engineering, or heavy duty math problems.  Yet this is the automatic assumption whenever I bring it up.

Well, why don't people understand the broader application of philosophy? After sitting through a class or two of "Is truth beauty, or is beauty truth?" and "If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" sane people tend to conclude that this has nothing to do with them and they're better off without it. Ditto for reason . . . the third time you tell someone "I reasoned it," and they respond with "Really? Well that's not PROOF," you begin to become just a little disgruntled with the whole idea.

My thought is that the reason (heh) that people associate reason only with math and science is that these are the fields where the exercise of reason is rewarded instead of damned.

And I am also kind of looking for a better definition of terms.  While solving a calculus problem obviously involves reason, in that you have to understand the principles of calculus, you have to understand the problem right in front of you, etc., but actually SOLVING it seems more like "logic" to me.

Reason is the faculty that integrates data from the senses into concepts (i.e. abstractions) using a process of logic. Logic is the name of the integrating process, Reason the name for the faculty that (if used properly) eventually produces abstract knowledge.

So, yes, solving an equation is a logical process . . . which uses your reason.

[DavidV]

Why is it that, whenever I mention reason, people seem to think it only applies to people solving some kind of mathematical problem?

As Jennifer pointed out, I think the essence of the problem is the mind-body dichotomy. If reason is understood as a realm separate and in conflict with reality, then it follows that “practical” problems cannot be answered by reason.

[Hal]

Why is it that, whenever I mention reason, people seem to think it only applies to people solving some kind of mathematical problem?

Because that's what 'reason' generally means in common usage and it's how most people will learn the word - your definition of it is fairly unique to Objectivism. Just because people don't use that term to describe non-analytic problem solving doesnt mean that they dont actually use 'reason' (as we would use the term) when making their judgements.

Edited February 16, 2005 by Hal

[BurgessLau]

Why is it that, whenever I mention reason, people seem to think it only applies to people solving some kind of mathematical problem?

Reason is anything and everything man has to do to understand the world around him [...]

It is perplexing isn't it? You might keep a couple of historical factors in mind as you encounter narrow meanings of reason:

1. Reason -- as the full "faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses" (Ayn Rand Lexicon, "Reason," p. 407) -- has usually been sliced, diced, distorted, partly misunderstood, misrepresented, misapplied, or ignored throughout the history of philosophy. Why is that important? Because the idea of reason is an essential distingushing characteristic of each philosophy -- in one form or another, and because philosophy causes history and thus the state of culture and society in which we live.

2. In particular, a common dichotomy (which initially might seem true, but ultimately is false) is the long-standing dichotomy between "practical" reason and "theoretical" reason. (Those terms have many synonyms.) Most people in Western countries accept this dichotomy, but then label "practical reason" as "common sense" -- or don't use any label at all. (Most people aren't conscious of their own mental processes.) So, they end up with the belief that reason is "theoretical" only.

For this general problem, the meaning of "reason," I highly recommend, for beginning students of philosophy, the series by W. T. Jones. It is called A History of Western Philosophy (2nd or later editions). It comes in five volumes, covering the period from the beginning of philosophy to the 20th Century. To a great extent, each volume (for example, Kant and the Nineteenth Century) stands alone, so you can buy one at a time following your interest. Jones provides historical backgroud, substantial excerpts from the philosophers themselves, and his own analysis.

One thread running throughout that vast fabric of the history of philosophy is the meaning of "reason" and the subsequent evaluation of "reason," however defined. The assumed nature of reason is one of the key factors that determine the rise and fall of civilzations.

[KantSpell4...]

I agree with some of the explanations offered by people here. Reason is very much a process of logical deduction provided from the data provided by our senses. Alot of the reason you seem to find too prevalent is merely logic being applied in a way that seems to smack too much of mathematics.

However, mathematics, and such sceinces thrive off logic, and are ideal usages of ones logical thought, reason. At the very root of it, mathematical sceinces boil down to logic and a few rules that describe reality. They are highly powerful and efficent methods of describing reality, and is not that one of Objectivisms highest pivots?

So what could be wrong with using reason in a mathematical way? Is it too 'cold'? That is OK though, it therefore isnt corrupted by emotion, which is clearly a good thing.

Therefore, as I see it, you should not have a problem with people applying logic in this way, in fact I feel you would be better off realising that such methods are GOOD methods of applying reason.

[JMeganSnow]

So what could be wrong with using reason in a mathematical way?  Is it too 'cold'?  That is OK though, it therefore isnt corrupted by emotion, which is clearly a good thing. 

Therefore, as I see it, you should not have a problem with people applying logic in this way, in fact I feel you would be better off realising that such methods are GOOD methods of applying reason.

I think Amber's question was more along the lines of "why don't people understand that it is ALSO good to apply reason and logic to non-mathematical/scientific subjects," such as art, the humanities, politics, economics . . . subjects that are definitely failing for a lack of reasoned thought.

[KantSpell4...]

I think Amber's question was more along the lines of "why don't people understand that it is ALSO good to apply reason and logic to non-mathematical/scientific subjects," such as art, the humanities, politics, economics . . . subjects that are definitely failing for a lack of reasoned thought.

True, I think I did miss that possible point. Mind you, Economics can be very mathematica/scientific, but I will not go into that, that is beside the point.

In such areas, I will grant that you need .the to be less cold and mathematical. Thanks for reminding me o what I should not need to be reminded about.