• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

“Be Reasonable!”

August 21, 2012 by Mark Linsenmayer 11 Comments

I wanted to expand a bit on the critique of reason as mentioned in my previous post on Rand, and readers should keep in mind that this is chiefly a response to a strain I've picked up on in popular culture which may or may not accurately capture anything Rand actually said (though it does match my 20+ year old recollections of her).

Back at the dawn of the Enlightenment, it made perfect sense for philosophers to stress the role of reason in providing knowledge as opposed to faith or authority. The conflict with faith still exists today in some form, but has been much attenuated, with faith (in academic circles at least) backed into a small corner. Moreover, sophisticated advocates of faith today still explicitly use reason to justify faith itself, i.e. not the content of the beliefs taken on faith, but the act of choosing faith. This defensive move marks the virtual victory of the Enlightenment when it comes to requiring rational justifications for beliefs and actions, i.e. demanding reason.

Calls to use reason are currently synonymous with calls to know thyself, to think about what you're doing, i.e. calls to philosophy in general. To be reasonable is to not be blinded by passions, to not leave your assumptions unchecked, and to subject your and others' arguments to careful critical scrutiny. Granting this starting point, though, one's model of how reason actually works can be more or less naïve. An unbridled enthusiast of reason may see reason as by itself capable of answering all legitimate philosophical questions, and of positively directing, at least for an individual in a particular situation, an overall approach to life and the content of every significant decision. Actually diving into the history of philosophy with some spirit of charity belies this conclusion. Does reason, for instance, entail that we reject all religion? Well, it's a tough call. Probably not. Does reason entail a particular political stance? Well, it certainly seems to rule out quite a few, but it strains credibility to believe that given the numbers of smart, careful thinkers on both the left and right (and perhaps more of them not holding positions that fit on that spectrum) that reason itself rules out one of their positions completely.

Here's the problem: explicit reason is generally good for evaluating the strength of particular arguments and identifying the assumptions that would make them tip one way or the other. However, to then make a overall judgment call about an approach to life as a whole or some significant portion of it in light of numerous arguments, as well as considerations (there will always be some) that you're aware have remained largely unanalyzed, requires that damned Aristotelian practical wisdom (phrónēsis), which is a matter not of explicit reasoning but of overall "reasonableness," which is much less easy to spell out than, say, the rules of deductive logic, and I would argue by its very nature phrónēsis can't be spelled out without an infinite regress, as it's about how to sensibly interpret and apply specific insights. Rules for applying an insight would themselves require sensible application, i.e. rules for the rules, ad infinitum.

My comments above about religion and politics above constitute an inductive argument: we don't actually see, in detail, the life-long workings of (most) other people's philosophical development and self-examination, so in judging, e.g. "all theists are irrational" or "all lefties are sentimentalists," we'd be in essence judging these people by their results: we'd have decided already that there's no reasonable excuse for such a position, so therefore people holding that position must be screwed up, even if I haven't seen first hand the actual flaws in their approach (and of course one can typically interpret other people's behavior to "prove" our prior assumptions about them, e.g. if I think like Nietzsche that Christians are underlyingly bitter, I'll read all sorts of repressed rage into their behavior). The alternative, which I recommend, is using the principle of charity: From what I've seen, plenty of smart, extremely reflective people, linguistically competent and with full access to the history of philosophy and logic, have held these positions, so let's just grant that they're not self-deluding. That doesn't mean that I won't pull out my best critical faculties when arguing some particular point with them, but it does mean that I don't go around declaring people that think like I do as the only reasonable ones on the planet.

Insofar as objectivists, or the scientism-striken, or especially enthusiastic Enlightenment-era authors, or anyone else holds up reason as an excuse for some form of dogmatism, then they are not being reasonable at all. There is no shortcut to actually engaging the troublesome problems of philosophy, no principle of verification or behaviorist linguistic stipulations or even a thoroughgoing empiricism that will effectively enable one to lop off in a couple of swipes the dangling braids of Being, Existenz, the limits of space and time, the origin of the universe, free will, mind-body, and the rest of the historical menagerie. Certainly the uninformative proclamation to simply "be reasonable" won't do the trick, as if philosophers hadn't been already trying to do just that pretty much since Plato.

-Mark Linsenmayer

Image note: this inexplicable image came from the My First Dictionary blog.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Misc. Philosophical Musings Tagged With: philosophy blog, reason

Comments

  1. Guy says

    August 21, 2012 at 5:17 am

    Hear hear! It astounds me how many ‘free-thinkers’ only like that term being applied to people who agree with them! I call myself a free-thinking Christian for this very reason – at least engage with me before dismissing me as irrational!

    Reply
  2. Adam says

    August 21, 2012 at 10:21 am

    Yeah, or I could just pull a bunch of axioms out of my ass, apply them to my perceptions in order to ostensively define reality, solving what seemed like difficult empirical problems in the process, and finding out that all my original prejudices turn out to be exactly correct. Then, if I redefine rationality as doing this kind of nonsense, I get to feel like I’m more rational than everyone else. Then I can redefine happiness as being rational. And BOOM! Who needs phronesis. I’m rational and happy by definition.

    Reply
    • Lewis says

      May 24, 2013 at 8:31 am

      The PEL and Philosophy Bites podcasts have definitely sparked my interest in philosophy. As a result, I’ve been looking into all sorts of philospophical systems lately (including even Objectivism). I’ve relied primarily on Dawson Bethrick’s blog at http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com to familiarize miyself with the Objectivist approach to philosophy.

      You seem to be saying that the Objectivist axioms are bullshit, but I ‘m having a tough time seeing how we could get around them. Bethrick says that axioms are “conceptually irreducible primaries” and self-evident concepts that form the basis for all higher-level knowledge. To belabor the point a bit more, “the axioms are not inferred from prior truths; on the contrary, they are the truths on which all other truths stand.” Objectivists claim that a person would be affirming the axioms even as he attempted to refute them.

      1. The first axiom is that existence exists (there is something rather than nothing).
      2. The second axiom is that to exist is to be something (the law of idenitity or A = A).
      3. The third axiom is that consciousness exists (any assertion about reality implies that some conscious entity is making the assertion).

      What are your thoughts?

      Reply
      • Mark Linsenmayer says

        May 24, 2013 at 9:49 am

        Hi, Lewis,

        This is timely; I’ve been reading Rand in preparation for a future episode of late. I’m writing a full blog post to try to feel my way through this now.

        Reply
        • Lewis says

          May 24, 2013 at 11:26 am

          Thanks, Mark. By the way, I’ve been listening to your Schleiermacher episode today. It is excellent. Any chance you’ll get Daniel to be on another episode? He seemed to mesh well with you guys.

          Reply
          • Daniel Horne says

            May 24, 2013 at 1:17 pm

            Hi Lewis,

            Thanks for the kind words. I like to think of myself as the Chris Elliott to Mark’s (80s-era) Letterman. I kind of pop up when least expected:

            http://youtu.be/89GrBnmYwXY

  3. Vasili says

    August 21, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    http://books.google.fi/books/about/Culture_and_Practical_Reason.html?id=G4r34YIu610C&redir_esc=y

    Reply
  4. Adam Swartz says

    August 21, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    Great post…I especially love the bit about charity. I find it interesting that for me, a non-trained-philosopher, there is an underlying assumption that Reason equals Logic. I appreciate the broader take on reason given here, one that includes logic but also phrónēsis….and perhaps more….

    Reply
  5. Laurence says

    August 22, 2012 at 7:42 am

    I like the way the philosophy Stephen Law approaches reasonableness. Reasonableness is on a scale and, beliefs can be more or less reasonable. Determining the reasonableness of a position is usually based on the amount of evidence we have for that position. He may have other determining factor as well. And I think that having one, two, three, or even more irrational beliefs doesn’t necessarily make someone irrational. Being irrational is kind of a fuzzy concept, and it’s usually one of those, I know it when I see it things. I wrote a small piece about this here: http://www.withau.blogspot.com/2012/08/intelligence-and-character.html

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. David Burrell on Nietzsche and “Trust” | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    August 30, 2012 at 11:59 am

    […] may be of most interest to our listeners given our recent focus on Nietzsche and our ongoing discussion of reason, are the first and final lectures of the series covering Nietzsche and John Henry […]

    Reply
  2. “Conceptual Primaries” (Rand vs. Deleuze) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    May 24, 2013 at 11:29 am

    […] to make a proper blog post out of it. This morning a newish (I guess) listener named Lewis posted a comment on a post I wrote last summer on “reason” as used by Ayn Rand and others. We’ll […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Bibliophile on Pretty Much Pop #143: Pinocchio the Unfilmable (Yet Frequently Filmed)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part Two)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • MartinK on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in