In ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle made popular the concept that philosophers, by use of “reason,” could arrive at the eternal and definite truth of morals, ethics, and political and social structures.
Today, many influential and diverse movements still assume that they have arrived at the eternal and definite truth of morals, ethics, and political and social structures. Some of these modern movements are:
a. Secular Humanism
b. Objectivism (founded by the novelist Ayn Rand)
c. Christian “Natural Law” philosophers (e.g., Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett)
Notice that the people within all three of the movements above are very certain that they have found the true way for humans to live and proceed forward.
If I am correct, all of these movements use the Platonic and Aristotelian “reason” of ancient Greece.
Yet two of these movements are atheistic (Secular Humanism and Objectivism) and one of them is theistic (the Christian “Natural Law” philosophers).
Exactly what is the process of “reason” that Plato and Aristotle taught to the world?
It’s NOT the same as the modern scientific method, since it seems well established by, and agreed upon by, our best scholars that the modern scientific method cannot prescribe anything regarding morals and ethics.
Yet, the writings of Plato and Aristotle are full of prescriptions regarding moral and ethics, as are the writings of the 3 example modern movements listed above in this comment.
Aristotle, for example, used his philosophical “reason” to determine that most men are “natural slaves” (his term) who should have no rights whatsoever in the political system. Aristotle also used the process of philosophical “reason” to determine that all women lack sufficient reasoning power and must always be ruled over by men (fathers, husbands, brothers, uncles).
Objectivists (Ayn Rand’s group) use the process of philosophical “reason” to determine that unregulated selfishness-driven Capitalism is the only good economic system, and that all other systems are pure evil.
Christian “Natural Law” philosophers use the process of philosophical “reason” to determine that abortion must be completely illegal and forbidden from the moment of conception.
Secular Humanists use the process of philosophical “reason” to determine that abortion should be a right that each woman can decide about, on her own, in privacy.
In light of all these diverse and contradictory conclusions coming from the use the process of philosophical “reason,” some modern philosophers have concluded that this philosophical “reason” is a form of mysticism that various people and groups employ to justify whatever their appetites make them want.
I.e., all philosophical reasoning it is a form of “motivated reasoning.” (see Wikipedia)
I.e., we humans, despite whatever fantasies we may have, are forever in the dark in Plato’s Cave. No escape is coming. No sustainable enlightenment is possible.
I.e., as Darwin shockingly showed the world, we are essentially like all the other biological beings on the earth, just carrying out our genetic programming directing us to survive, seek pleasure, avoid pain, and reproduce.
I.e., to refer back to Plato’s Allegory of the Chariot, we are forever controlled and pulled by the wild, unreasoning horse that is pure appetite.
In sum, I am inclined to agree with philosophers and other thinkers who have concluded that:
a. The process and activity of philosophical “reason” is just a form of mysticism that is used to justify and sanctify anything. Dostoevsky had one of his fictional characters say something along the lines of, “Without God, everything is permitted.” But a modern revision of that could be: “With philosophy, anything can be justified.” (Thus, philosophy functions in human life just like religion does.)
b. Philosophical “reason” is just a tool and weapon that is wielded by individuals and groups in the perpetual war (entailing much cooperation within each warring group) for superiority and dominance in the struggle to control the perpetually scarce resources needed to survive and reproduce. (“survival of the fittest”)
c. No matter what self-aggrandizing vanity, conceits, fantasies, esteem, pleasantries, and fictions that our minds may be filled with as regards the character and nature of our species (or at least some of us), we humans are all irredeemable beasts and savages .
By the way, this is exactly what Rod Serling’s fictional stand-in, Dr. Zaius, constantly explains to naive astronaut George Taylor in Rod Serling’s 1968 “Planet of the Apes,” right before Taylor discovers the horror of what humankind’s animal nature lead to, which is an abysmal culmination that the tragic hero of the story, Dr. Zaius, is trying to prevent for his ape civilization, by use of Platonic “noble lies” and other oppressive, authoritarian tactics,. But as we see in the sequel movie, “Beneath the Planet of the Apes,” that the savage, beastly nature of all biological beings is within Dr. Zaius’ ape society too, and so their civilization comes to an end as well. (Yes, these are all just stories. But these stories seem to track fairly well with modern science.)
I.e., as Darwin shockingly showed the world, we are essentially like all the other biological beings on the earth, just carrying out our genetic programming directing us to survive, seek pleasure, avoid pain, and reproduce.
I.e., to refer back to Plato’s Allegory of the Chariot, we are forever controlled and pulled by the wild, unreasoning horse that is pure appetite.
In sum, I am inclined to agree with philosophers and other thinkers who have concluded that:
a. The process and activity of philosophical “reason” is just a form of mysticism that is used to justify and sanctify anything. Dostoevsky had one of his fictional characters say something along the lines of, “Without God, everything is permitted.” But a modern revision of that could be: “With philosophy, anything can be justified.” (Thus, philosophy functions in human life just like religion does.)
Nice post.
I want to submit that “Reason” is subjective and philosophical in nature, but “Logic” is objective and scientific in nature.
What is the Difference Between Logic and Reason?
The primary difference between logic and reason is that reason is subject to personal opinion, whereas logic is an actual science that follows clearly defined rules and tests for critical thinking. Logic also seeks tangible, visible or audible proof of a sound thought process by reasoning.
Another dividing line between logic and reason is that logic is also defined as core principles and the circuit connections that carry out mathematical computations in computers, which do not and cannot reason like people can. Unlike the word “logic,” “reason” is also a verb, and it refers to the action of conversing with someone in an attempt to influence or change his or her personal opinion. Therefore, a person can reason with another, but he or she cannot “logic” with another person.
I have stopped at this one and quickly gazed at the bottom, and as you seem to have built a case around this as an assumption, then to falsify this #7 on your list could be a meaningful step.
As regards speciation, we have scientifically entered ourselves into the animal record as homo sapiens, sapiens.
This includes all of us. Further, through modern genetic analysis we have come to the recent realization that all humans have originated in Africa. This notion that Africa is ultimately not just the home of the black man whose forebears were chained in the basements of ships and enslaved in our land, but that we too, of another skin color, should call this our homeland as well: here we see a unifying aspect that truly modern science has brought. This goes in contradiction to the limited views, say, of the early nineteen hundreds, where one great leader espoused:
“The types of creatures on the earth are countless, and on an individual level their self-preservation instinct as well as the longing for procreation is always unlimited; however, the space in which this entire life process plays itself out is limited. It is the surface area of a precisely measured sphere on which billions and billions of individual beings struggle for life and succession. In the limitation of this living space lies the compulsion for the struggle for survival, and the struggle for survival, in turn, contains the precondition for evolution.” - Hitler's second book : Adolf Hitler : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
and of course what would appear to be a scientific investigation goes terribly wrong as the extension onto nationality merely evades a more local tension of tribality or even of family. The greatest truth as one looks large, and larger still, ends in the global view. That science does in fact attempt to achieve this level of truth is exactly in correspondence to the earlier point.
As we witness ourselves captives of nationalistic sentiments; as for instance, when your child goes to school every day, standing in the morning, and holding their hand to their chest mumbling the same words they mumbled yesterday to a piece of cloth hanging from the wall which supposedly separates their ilk from the other ilk, well, we have a direct contradiction in scientific terms here, do we not?
What does science have to do with this? It is the voluntary reciting of the pledge of allegiance to the US, without prejudice to any other country or individual.
For a country of immigrants it is required only when applying for citizenship.
The Supreme Court resolved this issue 80 years ago in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. The Court held that requiring public school students to pledge allegiance to the flag violates their First Amendment right against compelled speech.Feb 24, 2023 The Supreme Court resolved this issue 80 years ago in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. The Court held that requiring public school students to pledge allegiance to the flag violates their First Amendment right against compelled speech. Feb 24, 2023
