Logic and Reason
It should not be a surprise to anybody that a logical position is not the same as a rational position. Both are positions derived from rules, but both have weaknesses arising from the kind of rules they use.
A logical position arises from consideration of what is valid and what is not; that is, after rules are established, it becomes possible to evaluate whether a position is allowable by the rules or not.
A rational position arises from consideration of what is likely or possible, and what is not; that is, after evaluating a position as possible, rules are generated to validate or invalidate the position.
The strength of any particular logic is that things are either consistent or not. If things cannot be determined to be consistent or not, then the logic is insufficient or the thing is not amenable to that particular logic. This makes everything simple. The weakness of logic is that if the system has false or inappropriate axioms, analysis will fail.
The strength of reason is that it can draw on any prior semi-stable (or better) position as a basis of explanation; it casts a very wide net that includes the use of logic without precluding voices of authority, magic, philosophy, religion, intuition, faith and inspiration. This makes it both reasonable and not — and this is reason's weakness as well.
Logic and reason are not the same thing at all. A reasonable person is not necessarily a logical person. A purely logical person cannot deal with most human constructs simply because the axioms behind such things are mostly unknown — and where axioms are unknown, logic cannot be applied.
The reasonable man may also be an unreasonable man, although George Bernard Shaw, who famously said that all progress depends on the unreasonable man, would ram the difference down your throat. The logical man, however, is also the incomplete man, as Kurt Gödel would have pointed out.
On the balance of things, I would prefer to be reasonable than logical. Most humans would agree.
A logical position arises from consideration of what is valid and what is not; that is, after rules are established, it becomes possible to evaluate whether a position is allowable by the rules or not.
A rational position arises from consideration of what is likely or possible, and what is not; that is, after evaluating a position as possible, rules are generated to validate or invalidate the position.
The strength of any particular logic is that things are either consistent or not. If things cannot be determined to be consistent or not, then the logic is insufficient or the thing is not amenable to that particular logic. This makes everything simple. The weakness of logic is that if the system has false or inappropriate axioms, analysis will fail.
The strength of reason is that it can draw on any prior semi-stable (or better) position as a basis of explanation; it casts a very wide net that includes the use of logic without precluding voices of authority, magic, philosophy, religion, intuition, faith and inspiration. This makes it both reasonable and not — and this is reason's weakness as well.
Logic and reason are not the same thing at all. A reasonable person is not necessarily a logical person. A purely logical person cannot deal with most human constructs simply because the axioms behind such things are mostly unknown — and where axioms are unknown, logic cannot be applied.
The reasonable man may also be an unreasonable man, although George Bernard Shaw, who famously said that all progress depends on the unreasonable man, would ram the difference down your throat. The logical man, however, is also the incomplete man, as Kurt Gödel would have pointed out.
On the balance of things, I would prefer to be reasonable than logical. Most humans would agree.
etched with acid at 12:01:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home