My goal is to shed light on understanding human rationality and to help expand appreciation of the requirements we must meet in order to reason well.
The following essay presents a carefully stipulated definition of the term 'Affirmative Rationality' and examines in detail the words used in the definition. For more on stipulation see "Definition Essay" in PlusRoot.com. Also see the appendix for an explanation of punctuation and other styles I use.
Affirmative Rationality is not a new idea. Much of the rational philosophy of western civilization promoted comparable understandings. This was particularly true in the North American Colonies in the Eighteenth century during that lively period when the United States was formed. Even today, when the world is flush with modern counter-affirmative thought, many people are committed to the classical ideals of reason and use the terms 'rational' or 'commonsense' with a meaning similar to Affirmative Rationality.
The following paragraph gives the primary definition of Affirmative Rationality. It is the key to understanding my thinking. In this web site and other writings, I capitalize the term to emphasize I am using this definition.
'Affirmative Rationality' is an adequate use of the basic requirements of sound rational thinking.
This essay examines the words in the definition starting from the last to the first. I discuss 'thinking' then 'rational' then 'sound' then 'basic requirements' and finally 'adequate use'.
There are many secondary thoughts that follow from the primary definition of Affirmative Rationality. Each explanation is an introduction to a larger clarification. The process is open-ended because explanations, obviously, can go on and on. This is particularly true of 'rationality' since rationality touches our lives on so many levels.
All thoughts concerning rationality are worth expanding but they must be discussed one at a time because that is the way people think.
'Thinking' refers to processes and products of the mind. This includes both physiological and intellectual mental functions and the ways they interact. This definition blankets a wide territory of mental activity.
Our mind is the arena where we process, store and manage mental activity. In humans, mind is a faculty and/or location where image and idea, percept and concept, concrete and abstract interact and intermingle.
Please take notice; there are many different definitions of mind. For example, numerous philosophers of the past used the word 'mind' strictly for intellectual realities and the terms imagination and body for physical activities. Philosophers, such as Descartes, who follow this tradition, should be read according to their own definitions.
I do not follow this older convention because, after much reflection, I decided it is more elegant and fitting to use the term 'mind' in a more inclusive manner as an area where we connect intellect and imagination in our thinking.
In discussing our thinking abilities, this study emphasizes that thinking is something we do, not something that merely happens to us passively.
'Rational' refers to qualities and activities that involve reasons. In this point of view, rational implies reasoning or the ability to reason or simply the use of reason.
'Rational Thinking' refers to processes and products of the mind that use or rely on reasons. Not all thinking uses reasons. Much valuable thinking occurs in discriptions and stories that run along without using reasons. I will discuss strict declarative discourse in more detail later.
To designate qualities and activities that do not use reasons, I use terms other than rational. For example, for imaginative activities I use the term 'imaginative activities'. For conditioned reflexes I use the term 'conditioned reflexes'. For sensations I use the term 'sensations'. There are many applications of this policy. I hope to soon put on line in
Defining rationality as a quality or process involving reasons is common practice. For example, the American Heritage Electronic Dictionary (1999) gives four definitions of 'rational':
Definitions [1] and [3] specifically mention reason. Definition [2] equates rationality with sanity. Definition [4] is mathematical. We can read these definitions to suggest that sanity has something to do with the use of reason.
The mathematical use of 'rational' has its own history and definition which should not be confused with the common definition. In Set Theory, a Rational Number is a number expressed as a ratio of two integers (a/b). Numbers that cannot be expressed as ratios, such as the square root of two, are called Irrational Numbers. The set of Real Numbers is the union of the Rational and Irrational Numbers.
In mathematics, irrationality is simply an attribute of a number. In common usage, irrationality is a value judgment. It is the failure to use reasons.
Mathematics uses reasons to discuss Irrational Numbers. Confusing the precise mathematical definitions with the common definitions is the fallacy of equivocation.
Most dictionaries connect the term 'rational' with the use of reasons.
As already said, people sometimes use the term rational for activities that do not involve reasons. In my opinion, using the word rational to name situations that do not involve reasons leads to needless conundrums. I work hard to avoid this practice.
Rationality, activity that involves the use of reasons, is a crucial aspect of our being. The consequences of playing word games with important ideas, such as 'reason' and 'rational', can impede civil discourse and reduce our ability to solve problems in a mutually beneficial method.
As my argument unfolds, I hope it will become more and more clear that intrinsic equivocation over the meaning of the term 'rational' interferes with our abilities to reason constructively together and to resolve conflict without cruelty and without violence. Developing a clear and appropriate understanding of reason and rationality can be of enormous assistance in upgrading the quality of our rational skills.
'Reason' refers to mental processes that connect together separate thoughts which share middle terms so as to reach conclusions.
Reasoning is the process of using reasons. Each reasoning process uses its own reasons.
I have much, much more to say about this definition of reason which I will approach in due course.
'Rational Thinking' and 'Rational Thought' are, by definition, processes and products of the mind that in some manner involve the use of reasons. This classification is the result of putting together the sections above. It is an obvious step. The operative word in Rational Thinking is reason.
Rationality, defined as a type of thinking that uses reasons, is a point of view that is intrinsically involved with reasons and reasoning. Affirmative Rationality is a point of view that affirms this interpretation of Rationality.
Following this definition, those activities that do not use reasons are not referred to as rational activities in these pages. This is not hard because there are plenty of terms available. For example in referring to instincts, I use the word 'instinct'. Instincts operate through reflexes. There is no reasoning involved.
This next set of questions about the value of reasons is crucial. It is here that rational theories radically differ in quality. It is the crux of the matter.
Let's begin with the question: Are all reasons of equal value or are some reasons more sound than others? That is, in looking for reasons, will any reason do or are some reasons better than others?
The commonsense answer to this question is, "yes". Most people are quick to see that all reasons are not of equal value. Some reasons are more justified than others. In looking for reasons to support a cause, it is normal for people to be careful not to latch on to deficient reasons. A deficient reason can undermine a worthy cause.
Affirmative Rationality is a point of view that emphatically endorses this common response and goes a step further. Not only should we be careful that the reasons we use are sound but we should make a concerted effort to learn how to tell sound reasons from unsound reasons.
A person can randomly slap reasons onto thoughts to produce rational thinking. This process is often called rationalization. The results are rarely sound.
Learning to tell the difference between sound reasoning and unsound reasoning is crucial in developing high quality rational skills. From an Affirmative Rational point of view, it is a path to follow. It is something we should do. It is a duty.
This brief explanation establishes that Affirmative Rationality is a value theory. It is a point of view that explores how we should use our rational skills and why we should care. Sound rational thinking is a value to pursue. Unsound Rational thinking is a fault to avoid.
Look at it this way: If there is a difference between sound and unsound reasoning, we are faced with a decision: What is most important, truth and sound reasoning or a sentimentally preferred effect? What should we do when the demands of sound rational thinking stand in the way of our burning desires? We have to choose.
You might ask, "Why would people choose unsound reasoning?" The answer is simple. Unsound reasoning can be a short cut to getting what we want. It can be a quick fix and is very tempting. It is sometimes used as the way to wealth and power. Often cunning rationalizations appear more sophisticated than genuine, substantial explanations.
This point cannot be over-emphasized. There are many ways to turn away from the demands of responsible rationality.
Points of view that significantly override Affirmative Rational responsibilities by discounting the difference between sound and unsound are referred to herein as 'Counter-Affirmative Methods' or other appropriate terms. In other places I expand on the various ideologies and maneuvers that result from discounting the requirements of sound rational thinking and from failure to appreciate the difference between sound reason and unsound rationalization.
'Basic Requirements of Sound Rational Thinking' are the things we do to insure that our reasons are sound rather than unsound. They are the needs we must meet if we are to reason well. The common logical requirements of sound rational thinking constitute the behaviors that distinguish judicious from injudicious. For short, they are the rules of right reason.
In Chapter Ten of The Roots of Sound Rational Thinking I discuss in detail the complexity of trying to itemize specific requirements of sound rational thinking. Logicians often write books of 700 to 800 pages and then title their project "An Introduction to Logic". I used to think that was silly until I got into the subject and learned to agree. The author was right. It was only an introduction. All that I am doing here is writing a preface to an introduction.
Because each writer puts emphasis on a different aspects of a very broad subject, there is room for many books on logic and rational philosophy. As time passes, there is always a need for updates to accommodate new discoveries and correct mistakes. That is what affirmative logic does.
Specifying the requirements of sound rational thinking in well-formed sentences, results in logic texts of 700 pages that are still nothing but an introduction. When we get down to the details, the requirements of sound rational thinking go on and on just as all of the sciences go on and on. The last word has not been written in math, chemistry, physics or biology. Even more so, the last word has not yet been written in grammar, logic and rhetoric.
Recognizing the complexity of a subject does not mean that we should avoid the rudiments of the subject. It is just the opposite. The complexity is an invitation to a wonderful adventure with ever new wonders to explore but we need the rudiments to begin the journey. Should we deprive school children of arithmetic, algebra and geometry because advanced mathematics is multifaceted and compound? Of course not.
'Adequate Use' is a way of saying good enough. Good enough implies that there are standards to meet and that we have the ability to meet those standards sufficiently to do a praiseworthy job even though we fall short of perfection.
Using the term 'adequate use' also brings to the forefront the reality that our knowledge is limited. Affirmative Rationality is a firm commitment to the promotion and use of Sound Rational Thinking within our natural abilities. This means we keep constant tabs on our own limitations and look for ways to make improvements. The limitations inherent in our human rationality are no secret.
Although our rationality is restricted in scope, it is not useless. To the contrary, sound rationality is crucial to the well-bring of humanity. Learning to reason well is worth all the trouble it takes.
The term 'adequate use' suggests both the limits and possibilities of our rational enterprise. It also suggests that rationality is eminently valuable.
Just because human knowledge is limited and changing does not mean that 'Truth' too is limited and changing. To the contrary, 'Truth', when the term is used in its classical meaning, refers to a universal, unchanging aspect of reality that belongs to everybody. Truth is universal. All people are free to seek the truth.
Affirmative Rationality is a point of view that acknowledges the reality that our human rationality is a changing process and is inherently limited. Being a process, we can improve our rational skills by study and practice or we can allow our rational skills to decline through neglect. Working to improve our rational skills or allowing our skills to decline is a choice we make.
'Use' means actually doing something rather than merely talking. 'Adequate Use' means that the basic requirements of sound rational thinking are actually applied to the situation at hand in a manner good enough to meet the need.
Adequate Use is one of those normal suppositions so obvious that it is simply assumed. However, this is a study that concentrates on the obvious. If we do not actually use the basic requirements of sound rational thinking we should blush at calling ourselves 'rational'.
In this chapter I defined Affirmative Rationality as an adequate use of the basic requirements of requirements of sound rational thinking.
In expanding this idea, I defined rational as qualities and activities that involve reasons.
Next I distinguished between 'sound' and 'unsound' reasons and expressed a decided preference for sound over unsound.
I then pointed out that this is a value system. It is a value system because the basic requirements of sound rational thinking are those things we should do in order to reason well.
Sound rational thinking is not only something that we should do, it is something we can do and something that we often actually do do.
Affirmative Rationality is the adequate use of the basic requirements of sound rational thinking. It is an accomplishment well worth the effort it takes.
Actually learning to use the basic requirements of sound rational thinking is a complex process with countless ramifications. There are many problems involved and each problem deserves to be addressed individually.
In this web site I intend to address several solutions to crucial rational problems that can help us better understand our own rationality and hopefully make some real improvements in out personal rational skills.
The End of Chapter One.
Last updated March 11, 2008.
Previous
~ ~ Start
~ ~ Resources
~ ~ Next
1738 page views ©Virginia Vallee
index - y-intercept - Salt Lake - sponsors