With the modification of “some existential entity” to simply “something” (and this includes emotional responses about which is introspecting), and “must ultimately rely on” to “must have as its subject”, i.e.:
“There is always something that any mental process must have as its subject”
…I would agree.
One is thinking about something, one is imagining something, one is perceiving something. To suggest otherwise would be to imply movement can exist separate from that which moves.
Agreed.
This thread strikes me as “reason reasoning about reason”.
The concept of metacognition might be useful here.
Metacognition sounds like a cognitive science substitute for epistemology in some sense.
Metacognition sounds like a cognitive science substitute for epistemology in some sense.
You can also apply the term to studying the art of thinking. And to thinking about psycho-epistemology.
To me the initial question sounded like; “If we had a sense that told us what’s inside of a specific initially empty box it would be invalid because we’d first have to put something inside.”
What is Reason? It is the faculty that establishes Truth by means of logic.
Rand offered as a definition of Reason, “The faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.” Yet she also wrote (in the Romantic Manifesto), and correctly, “Nothing is outside the province of reason.” Her definition of Reason, though, wholly excludes the data of the processes of consciousness, of which one is aware introspectively and which is not available to the senses (the health or dysfunction of which is the subject of the science of psychology).
Reason is a “tool” or ability. Reason’s genesis was through evolution and it emerged specifically due to its (and its related reason-like ancestor traits) “successfulness” in relation to reality. Rand’s definition serves as an excellent reason why (cause) there is reason in the first place.
Reason is mental work which is invoked volitionally. As such, there should be a good reason to use it (it is work after all). In the context of Rand’s definition I would say that Rand is hinting at that good reason: that the tool should be used to understand reality. In this way Rand’s definition serves as an excellent reason to use (motivation) reason.
In at least two ways Rand has hit the bulls eye regarding the “raison d’etre” for/of reason, in both the scientific/literal origins sense and in the everyday choices sense.
The definition is not stipulating the subjects (information of man’s senses) upon which mental action is to take place as a limit but more as a guide to its central use - reality. The core of the definition I believe is identification and integration, and it applies to all new information (new input) and all existing knowledge.