Is reason enough?

[Taosaur]

The criteria were arrived at by intuition Are all areas of life open to rationalization (in the neutral, non-derogatory sense)? Is reason the only or primary faculty we should use in making decisions?

[Xei]

I think... reason refers to the process of inference. It is vital, but without some axioms to work with, it can't actually do anything. All science for example must begin with some observations. All philosophy, too. And hence on to ethics... I wouldn't say empathy is really totally separate from reason. Again, with ethics, we start (or at least we should do) with some self-evident truths, the pertinent one here being that all beings are equal; from this, I think empathy follows.

[HeavySleeper]

I think if we used reason alone in making all of our decisions, we would all be a race of Vulcans.

[Marvo]

I think if we used reason alone in making all of our decisions, we would all be a race of Vulcans. This shit ain't logical.

[DeeryTheDeer]

Intuition and empathy (especially intuition) are just fancy mythical words that mean "subconscious evolutionary hard-wirings of reason". Usually, if something feels right, logic and reason will eventually prove it to BE right anyway. That's WHY it feels good with intuition, because you know deep down, immediately how the most basic facts about the situation add up. You can't take 'reasoning' out of mental discussion like some sort of separate ingredient. ALL decision making is some form of reasoning. There is no "ghost in the machine".

[Alric]

I say reason is most important, as the others are often wrong. Even if you want to help someone, you should help them with reason, not with empathy. You get into all sort of trouble, when you based things on the other two.

[OldNutter]

I think an equal balance of all three is a good decision making.

[Taosaur]

Intuition and empathy (especially intuition) are just fancy mythical words that mean "subconscious evolutionary hard-wirings of reason". Usually, if something feels right, logic and reason will eventually prove it to BE right anyway. That's WHY it feels good with intuition, because you know deep down, immediately how the most basic facts about the situation add up. You can't take 'reasoning' out of mental discussion like some sort of separate ingredient. ALL decision making is some form of reasoning. There is no "ghost in the machine". I would put it the opposite way. There is no 'hidden reason' in intuition; when we investigate our intuitions after the fact, we do not "prove" them, we rationalize them, a process that would not be necessary if they were rational in the first place. Your last paragraph is semantic and I'll try to avoid getting bogged down there, but it certainly sounds to me like you view methodical, analytical thinking as eclipsing the other two, which I suppose would be option #3. Personally, I opt for #2, thinking and feeling that Reason, Intuition and Empathy operate best when each is well informed by the other two. I find the three terms symbolically balanced, holding equal symbolic weight when we discuss the form that consciousness takes in making a decision. As I said in the OP, the terms were chosen intuitively; I can invent reasons why I opted for them, but the experience of choosing them was not rational.

[stormcrow]

Reason is the perfect tool to tell us everything we need to know about the universe because its a product of the human mind and human perception is perfect and unclouded.

[DuB]

I understand that you selected these terms intuitively, but now that they're on the table I'd like to hear you elaborate a bit on just what you mean by each. At this point, if I go by my fuzzy ideas about what I think you mean, I don't see how these can be considered exclusive or even distinct ways of approaching a decision. Let's take "empathy." I assume by this you mean something to the effect that one's decisions should be informed by consideration of the preferences, rights, and feelings of those who would be affected by the decision. But it's not clear to me that this differs in a deep sense from "reason," given that the decision maker here is explicitly reasoning in at least two senses: (a) reasoning about what the other person's preferences are, what rights they are entitled to in this situation, and how the decision will affect their feelings, and (b) reasoning about the extent to which each available option would both respect these other-oriented criteria and also conform to the decision maker's own view of morality. It seems that you could easily say either that empathy is a component of reason, or conversely, that reason is a component of empathy. In any case I don't see that they are fundamentally different. The distinction between "intuition" and reason does seem a little more clear to me, but again, it's not clear that these can be considered separate in every instance. There are decisions for which an analytic approach seems appropriate and decisions for which an intuitive approach seems appropriate, so it seems problematic to say that one should be considered overall "more important" than the other. For example, if I'm having unusual car problems and I'm examining my engine to figure out exactly what the problem is, it seems clear that a good amount of conscious, explicit reasoning and testing will get me a lot farther than simply declaring the problem based on my intuition and then proceeding to try and fix it. On the other hand, if I'm deciding which flavor of ice cream to put in my ice cream cone, it seems clear that there is little or nothing that "reason" has to say about this, and the best way to approach the decision is to consult my intuitive feeling about which sounds the most tasty. You might even say that consulting my intuition is the "rational" choice for this decision. So as a summary, it's not clear to me that "empathy" should be considered something separate from reason or intuition. And while the distinction between reason and intuition does seem more defensible, it seems to me that whether one method should be preferred over the other depends entirely on the decision, so I would be hesitant to make a general statement that one is more important than the other. But maybe if you clear up what you had in mind when you came up with these terms we can come to a better understanding. I find the general idea of reason/rationality vs. intuition/emotion extremely interesting. That is, it's interesting to me to consider the differences between the two and when/whether we should prefer one, and it's interesting to me that we dichotomize the two in the first place.

[Philosopher8659]

You have an abbreviated understanding of the function of the two parts of the mind. Without emotion, one would be driven not even to think. As every thing is some material in some form, so too, reason and emotion. Emotion is the material difference, reason is the form applied to it. As a table is not a table without a shape, or without the wood, neither is human psychology. Why do you think some of the most reasonable figures in history were the most passonate?

[DeeryTheDeer]

I would put it the opposite way. There is no 'hidden reason' in intuition; when we investigate our intuitions after the fact, we do not "prove" them, we rationalize them, a process that would not be necessary if they were rational in the first place. Your last paragraph is semantic and I'll try to avoid getting bogged down there, but it certainly sounds to me like you view methodical, analytical thinking as eclipsing the other two, which I suppose would be option #3. Personally, I opt for #2, thinking and feeling that Reason, Intuition and Empathy operate best when each is well informed by the other two. I find the three terms symbolically balanced, holding equal symbolic weight when we discuss the form that consciousness takes in making a decision. As I said in the OP, the terms were chosen intuitively; I can invent reasons why I opted for them, but the experience of choosing them was not rational. All I know is that with the way the world is going recently, the very last thing in this whole world that we need is even LESS reason. We need more pure analytical logic and reason than ever before. Our society is clearly desperately deprived of this. That's why I think this thread would have been relevant maybe 50 years ago, but now there are just too many ideological psychotic zealots running around, who do and say more than think...

[Philosopher8659]

All I know is that with the way the world is going recently, the very last thing in this whole world that we need is even LESS reason. We need more pure analytical logic and reason than ever before. Our society is clearly desperately deprived of this. That's why I think this thread would have been relevant maybe 50 years ago, but now there are just too many ideological psychotic zealots running around, who do and say more than think... I could not agree more, however, I am putting "Language and Experience" which among other things demonstrates the foundation of all logic, and demonstrates how easy it is to refute non-Euclidean Geometry, and something about Lucid-dreaming, which I take also as a branch of logic, but a bit too advanced for us yet--into audio-book form. Since some of it has to do with math, I included, in an appendix, a demonstration of a figure that actually multiplies and divides a line by a line, which means that one can do the four basic moves of arithmetic exactly, whereas one cannot in arithmetic. Anyway, at this moment I am doing the audio. Posted it will have doc, rtf, txt, pdf, and abridged audio. I set my sights on writing a metaphysics that covers both science and religion for a reason, as, there is no use of language which is valid that violates the original naming convention. Long story. anyway. I need a critic, and I means someone who knows what critique is, to go over it. Perhaps if I post it, I will get one.

[spockman]

It seems to me self-evident that reason and logic is the highest basis for all opinions. Of course, how reason is applied is going to depend on the values a particular individual bases their life on. Those values can be personal and are probably going to be the product of intuition and empathy and reason. But logic is in itself is superior to any other method of conclusion. The universe works a certain way, things are what they are objectively, and the only standard we have to judge what those truths are is the standard of logic.

[Taosaur]

I understand that you selected these terms intuitively, but now that they're on the table I'd like to hear you elaborate a bit on just what you mean by each. At this point, if I go by my fuzzy ideas about what I think you mean, I don't see how these can be considered exclusive or even distinct ways of approaching a decision. I'm not trying to present them as exclusive or entirely distinct, but I am approaching them as fundamental faculties that can be strengthened (or allowed to atrophy) through practice. So, reasoning about another person's state of mind is not what I meant by empathy, so much as acting out of identity and common cause with other beings. The distinction between "intuition" and reason does seem a little more clear to me, but again, it's not clear that these can be considered separate in every instance... Exactly You are not making the case that reason/analysis/deliberation should be held above or can operate independent of our intuitive and social/emotional faculties, which in response to the title of this thread is a 'no.' I'm curious how many people will make a case for 'yes,' and for the poll opted to include a soft 'yes' and some balancing options which I doubt anyone will choose, though a case for the soft 'yes' on intuition or empathy would be interesting, too. I went for an array rather than a dichotomy in the hopes it would produce more thoughtful, less reactive answers, which has been fairly well borne out You have an abbreviated understanding of the function of the two parts of the mind. See above: I opted not to cleave the brain in twain at'll. That's why I think this thread would have been relevant maybe 50 years ago, but now there are just too many ideological psychotic zealots running around, who do and say more than think... We can be fairly certain there are proportionately fewer "ideological psychotic zealots," with less (though still substantial) power than fifty years ago. I'm inclined to think promoting 'mass sanity' means honing empathy, intuition and reason, with empathy foremost if anything. It seems to me self-evident that reason and logic is the highest basis for all opinions. Of course, how reason is applied is going to depend on the values a particular individual bases their life on. Those values can be personal and are probably going to be the product of intuition and empathy and reason. But logic is in itself is superior to any other method of conclusion. The universe works a certain way, things are what they are objectively, and the only standard we have to judge what those truths are is the standard of logic. The vast majority of decisions we make daily are highly subjective. Within the human sphere--largely social and emotional--the universe doesn't deign to "work a certain way" much of the time. It's definitely possible, and even common, to reason too much: beyond utility, and to the point of obscuring rather than revealing reality.

[Maria92]

Reason > emotion, intuition. My gut instinct sucks, and I have all the emotional response of a robot. Therefore, I rely predominantly on reason.

[Zhaylin]

I cannot see how I could ever separate the 3. I "read" people. I grew up in a very disfunctional household so picking up on "vibes" from other people comes very easily and naturally to me. Perhaps I thought too hastily though in answering the poll. I am, like it or not, probably guided by empathy more than anything else. Like, if I run into a stranger who is violently posturing (intuition/observation), reason first tells me to keep a safe distance. But then empathy kicks in and I read into what could be making the stranger behave in such a way. Was he laid off, had a fight with the wife or a friend, just having a bad day? Then I'll take in more cues- is he chopping at his words, what is he doing with his hands (palms up, down, fisted). All of this information, for me at least, is mostly processed on a subconscious level in moments. When confronted by such a person, though, I try to reach them with reason but I first approach with a smile and submissive posturing. So then... what am I ruled or guided by most lol?

[spockman]

The vast majority of decisions we make daily are highly subjective. Sure, which is why what is logical for one person may not be logical for another. It is all based on our values. If my life's goal is to experience joy, joy becomes my value. So it is logical and reasonable to make the decision that will best fulfill my emotions. But determining what is going to give me the most joy... that's rationality in action. Likewise, if my value was production making the choices that enable me to create the most are reason driven choices. So reason can be subjective, as well. Within the human sphere--largely social and emotional--the universe doesn't deign to "work a certain way" much of the time. No, it does work a certain way. Things are right and things are wrong. Moral issues will be either right or wrong according to the value system you are using, but how the universe works? It works in an objective manner. It's definitely possible, and even common, to reason too much: beyond utility, and to the point of obscuring rather than revealing reality. That's analyzing. And yes, one can analyze too much. But, should overthinking something mess up your life and one of your values is to have a well balanced life, analyzing becomes illogical because it ceases to support your values. This is something even Spock didn't understand. Thinking is not always logical, following an established process is not always logical, and listening to intuition can be logical. It all depends on what you have established to fulfill your values. An example. Spock and Kirk play chess. Kirk plays unpredictably and without using an established strategy. Spock plays according to a formula. Kirk wins. Spock accuses Kirk of winning due to an illogical play style. Wrong! Kirk was being highly logical by using his instinct to win the game. Why? Kirk had no chance of winning by using some technical strategy. He had to play unpredictably and used a style that would seem to have the worst odds- intuition instead of defined strategy. But since Kirk's strategy allowed Kirk to win the game, and thus achieve the game's value which is to best your opponent, Kirk was totally being reasonable. If achieving a value dictates the use of empathy and intuition, than those are logical. So by saying, "I am going to live by reason alone and not use intuition or empathy" you are probably contradicting yourself and attempting the impossible. The use of reason employs the use of analyzation, empathy, and instinct. Wisdom withing reason is the ability to know when to use which. So yes, reason is enough because it is doing what is most logical which is always good.