the birth of reasoning Options

[PANCHO]

Many people believe that we humans are rational animals. However, I think that reason had a birth date afterwords (it took off at the illustration). That is, we first became humans and then we learned how to be rational. Most people think that they are rational but that is probably less than 0.5% of their time and mostly to self justify irrational thoughts. So,in a sense, people are 99% irrational. Here are some Qs.

Does reason have a purpose?

When was its exact birth date?

How did people think before reason?

How did they see the universe?

Did reason make people happier?

What other alternatives to reason exists?

What are the pros and cons of reason?

What causes reason, biochemistry, order, attitude, etc?

Other Qs you may have?

[KoolK3n]

I see what ur getting at, but ironically the rationale behind this post is fundamentally flawed.

Who are you to judge whether something is rational or irrational?

[Joesus]

But don't you get it?
He is saying his own post is irrational based on his belief that people are self absorbed in 99.5% of irrationally based thought streams.

I can accept his own beliefs have power for him as do others accept the power of their own beliefs. Personally I don't subscribe to his belief system...

So is he fishing for support to have you agree with his irrational majority, or just asking that you accept his belief?

Personally, I can let him have it (his belief) without succumbing to irrationality.

[PANCHO]

Well, I thought the post was not going to create negative reactions but it did. Now people feel defensive and even feel judged.

I'll wait a couple days and post some of myanswers.

Relax and cool down.

[KoolK3n]

Any percieved aggression was not intended..

I'll be looking forward to your answers.

[Dianah]

Many people believe that we humans are rational animals. However, I think that reason had a birth date afterwords (it took off at the illustration). That is, we first became humans and then we learned how to be rational. Most people think that they are rational but that is probably less than 0.5% of their time and mostly to self justify irrational thoughts. So,in a sense, people are 99% irrational. Here are some Qs.

Does reason have a purpose?

When was its exact birth date?

How did people think before reason?

How did they see the universe?

Did reason make people happier?

What other alternatives to reason exists?

What are the pros and cons of reason?

What causes reason, biochemistry, order, attitude, etc?

Other Qs you may have?

I enjoyed your thoughts and questions, I found them interesting and the responses to your post interesting as well.

I look forward to hearing your answers to these questions.

[Dianah]

But don't you get it?
He is saying his own post is irrational based on his belief that people are self absorbed in 99.5% of irrationally based thought streams.

I can accept his own beliefs have power for him as do others accept the power of their own beliefs. Personally I don't subscribe to his belief system...

So is he fishing for support to have you agree with his irrational majority, or just asking that you accept his belief?

Personally, I can let him have it (his belief) without succumbing to irrationality.

hmmm...a wee bit defensive?

I find these questions thought provoking, introspective...stretching mental constraints. Ole Christopher Columbus must have encountered such responses, yet he moved forward despite opposition.

I hope poncho does the same.

[Joesus]

Well, I thought the post was not going to create negative reactions but it did. Now people feel defensive and even feel judged.

No, that is just an irrational thought....

[KoolK3n]

Well, I thought the post was not going to create negative reactions but it did. Now people feel defensive and even feel judged.

No, that is just an irrational thought....

I'm sorry but that was hilarious!!

[PANCHO]

No, that is just an irrational thought....

I don't see anything wrong with being irrational as it is normal. Perhaps internet life has made people acquire a more rational appearance as it is more of serial thinking, and more apt to be used for proofs, justifications and judgments. Things can have many points of view and assumptions that originate perspectives or views. But if one is used to the same perspective then he/she is probably less receptive to other alternative perspectives. Unlogical perspectives are more common than logical ones.

[Joesus]

I don't see anything wrong with being irrational as it is normal.

Then you must also see nothing wrong with war, famine, disease and ignorance...

Perhaps internet life has made people acquire a more rational appearance as it is more of serial thinking, and more apt to be used for proofs, justifications and judgments.

Ignorance is still ignorance, if anything the ability to speak your mind anonymously allows many to vent their frustrations towards the irrational in their native irrational tongue. God knows we don't condone expressing feelings directly if it tends to make someone uncomfortable.

Things can have many points of view and assumptions that originate perspectives or views. But if one is used to the same perspective then he/she is probably less receptive to other alternative perspectives. Unlogical perspectives are more common than logical ones.

Logic would be relative to the comprehensive levels of reality, as is the perspective of rationality.
I don't find your statements to be rational or logical, but they are if anything entertaining enough to inspire humor.

[PANCHO]

Joesus, please don't panic and chill up.

There are several ways of thinking that have come up during history. Probably the first one was to think in terms of quotes. People would collect quotes and then apply them to everyday problems. The first example is Heraclitus and some of the oriental thinkers (which surprisingly shared identical quotes). In the ancient quote system of thinking, the quotes are written ambiguously and the person using them adds the extra information to make sense. So a collection of quotes would help them through life as well as help them create a reality. Knowledge was used to guide them through life. A very similar version of the quote system are proverbs and popular sayings.

After the quote system, in Europe and the middle ages people thinking was very mixed with religion, which had answers for everything. I think that religion was the first system of thought but doesn't matter here (yeah it was before the quote system). Religious thinking tries to be very objective and have clear cut answers. It is the opposite of relativism. Its manifestation can be seen in art, which had flat perspectives. But when artists started making paintings with perspective, things started to change. All the sudden a painting could have different points of view. Things could be seen from different angles, which depended on position of the subject and the observer.

Reason had a several births. It first started with Parmenides (probably there was someone else earlier but don't know). Though Parmenides was the first recorded thinker to use reason, his impact was like a drop of water in a vast ocean. It wasn't till the renaissance that it took off. The most influential thinker was Descartes. But he used it mostly to complain. He complained about the condition of towns, the street were crooked, the houses were irregular, etc. It caught on. French gardens started to become geometric and reason started to be applied in art and education through Europe. But this second birth was not the decisive one. There was a new social class emerging in Europe, the bourgeoisie class (read it to know something about yourself).

Link: Bourgeois_culture

The bourgeoisie class has a characteristic that makes them special, it is an emphasis in caution. So they learned about reason and applied it to fear (be cautious) to create a new materialistic reality (before spirituality and reality was very mixed). This was also fueled by the industrial revolution.

In ancient and the middle ages, people saw a reality based on religious salvation and proverbs. Then reality shifted towards subjectivism, ego, and individualism (in Europe).

[Dianah]

Joesus, please don't panic and chill up.

There are several ways of thinking that have come up during history. Probably the first one was to think in terms of quotes. People would collect quotes and then apply them to everyday problems. The first example is Heraclitus and some of the oriental thinkers (which surprisingly shared identical quotes). In the ancient quote system of thinking, the quotes are written ambiguously and the person using them adds the extra information to make sense. So a collection of quotes would help them through life as well as help them create a reality. Knowledge was used to guide them through life. A very similar version of the quote system are proverbs and popular sayings.

After the quote system, in Europe and the middle ages people thinking was very mixed with religion, which had answers for everything. I think that religion was the first system of thought but doesn't matter here (yeah it was before the quote system). Religious thinking tries to be very objective and have clear cut answers. It is the opposite of relativism. Its manifestation can be seen in art, which had flat perspectives. But when artists started making paintings with perspective, things started to change. All the sudden a painting could have different points of view. Things could be seen from different angles, which depended on position of the subject and the observer.

Reason had a several births. It first started with Parmenides (probably there was someone else earlier but don't know). Though Parmenides was the first recorded thinker to use reason, his impact was like a drop of water in a vast ocean. It wasn't till the renaissance that it took off. The most influential thinker was Descartes. But he used it mostly to complain. He complained about the condition of towns, the street were crooked, the houses were irregular, etc. It caught on. French gardens started to become geometric and reason started to be applied in art and education through Europe. But this second birth was not the decisive one. There was a new social class emerging in Europe, the bourgeoisie class (read it to know something about yourself).

Link: Bourgeois_culture

The bourgeoisie class has a characteristic that makes them special, it is an emphasis in caution. So they learned about reason and applied it to fear (be cautious) to create a new materialistic reality (before spirituality and reality was very mixed). This was also fueled by the industrial revolution.

In ancient and the middle ages, people saw a reality based on religious salvation and proverbs. Then reality shifted towards subjectivism, ego, and individualism (in Europe).

Thanks for sharing this, I find it very, very interesting and something I will ponder on...it seems to point to the evolution of mind turning its attention to matter, or man immersing his attention deeper into the physical reality. I like the quote probability too...it allowed knowledge to be imparted and understood at a personal level, or allowing for ones experiences to bring it to a personal understanding. It also seems that religion then, was as a shift of mental workings...people being told what is, verses allowing for personal growth through individual experiences.

[Joesus]

Joesus, please don't panic and chill up.

Not to worry, there is no panicking on my part, so no need to project...

There are several ways of thinking that have come up during history. Probably the first one was to think in terms of quotes. People would collect quotes and then apply them to everyday problems. The first example is Heraclitus and some of the oriental thinkers (which surprisingly shared identical quotes). In the ancient quote system of thinking, the quotes are written ambiguously and the person using them adds the extra information to make sense. So a collection of quotes would help them through life as well as help them create a reality. Knowledge was used to guide them through life. A very similar version of the quote system are proverbs and popular sayings.

Where I see you drawing lines is in the beginnings and endings of relative idealism. You are assuming that humanity has a beginning within the boundaries of what you have accepted as the written word on history, yet mankind has existed long before this tiny planet came into existence, and history fails miserably in detailing the many civilizations that have come and gone on this rock; some which were far superior in technology than our present civilization.

After the quote system, in Europe and the middle ages people thinking was very mixed with religion, which had answers for everything. I think that religion was the first system of thought but doesn't matter here (yeah it was before the quote system). Religious thinking tries to be very objective and have clear cut answers. It is the opposite of relativism. Its manifestation can be seen in art, which had flat perspectives. But when artists started making paintings with perspective, things started to change. All the sudden a painting could have different points of view. Things could be seen from different angles, which depended on position of the subject and the observer.

I would agree that life can be seen from different angles depending on the observance and the conscious capability of the observer. Religion was the offspring of the weak minded observer who could not fathom the depth of intellectual capabilities of human consciousness nor the depth of the immortal soul which extends itself thru the relative.
Reason is inherent within conscious activity, and was exemplified in the story of adam and eve, where discernment was the moral of the story. In every case where discernment plays its role, knowledge is a key factor, and it is not so much that knowledge is a part of evolution as much as evolution has become the timeline for experience to integrate knowledge at different levels of reality. Reason didn't come about as a factor of evolution, but you could say reason has its refinement in the process of dissolving ignorance.

Reason had a several births.

No, It has always been, and always will be within the nature of the conscious man and at all levels of conscious awareness.

It first started with Parmenides (probably there was someone else earlier but don't know). Though Parmenides was the first recorded thinker to use reason, his impact was like a drop of water in a vast ocean. It wasn't till the renaissance that it took off. The most influential thinker was Descartes. But he used it mostly to complain. He complained about the condition of towns, the street were crooked, the houses were irregular, etc. It caught on. French gardens started to become geometric and reason started to be applied in art and education through Europe. But this second birth was not the decisive one. There was a new social class emerging in Europe, the bourgeoisie class (read it to know something about yourself).

Link: Bourgeois_culture

The bourgeoisie class has a characteristic that makes them special, it is an emphasis in caution. So they learned about reason and applied it to fear (be cautious) to create a new materialistic reality (before spirituality and reality was very mixed). This was also fueled by the industrial revolution.

In ancient and the middle ages, people saw a reality based on religious salvation and proverbs. Then reality shifted towards subjectivism, ego, and individualism (in Europe).

I find your reasoning lacking in experience, knowledge, and full of too much imagination which is not grounded in any connectivity to humanity. It would appear you have been indoctrinated into some sort of belief system, like religion.

And don't worry, I won't panic over your lack of depth and intuitive awareness. As long as you are OK with it, I am good to go.

[PANCHO]

Joesus, I don't see myself superior to any religious person. I don't call them ignorant because they think different. As I see it, we are just experiencing life in a different way. My views don't judge them or try to sink them, as I have nothing against them. In fact, I would like one day to maybe have a rich spiritual life as they have (and who doesn't) and I am willing to learn from them. I don't want meet "superior civilizations," I am happy in this one and it is quite interesting. I don't seek "inmortality" as I accept my life as it is. A "weak minded observer" is as good observer as I am. I am not interested on deeper "levels of consciuous awareness". I am happy where I am.

I find your reasoning lacking in experience, knowledge, and full of too much imagination which is not grounded in any connectivity to humanity. It would appear you have been indoctrinated into some sort of belief system, like religion.

Good. Maybe I can learn something from you. I am not perfect and have many defects which make me who I am. Surely, I have not been indoctrinated to anything, unless you know that better than I do.

[Joesus]

Joesus, I don't see myself superior to any religious person. I don't call them ignorant because they think different.

Ignorance in Religion is simply a lack of awareness and knowledge wrapped around changing belief systems that basically exist to give ones self meaning to life that are personal rather than universal. Illusions that distract the mind to the point where it is ignoring what is...
Whether you think you are better, worse or equal was not an issue when I detailed my answer in the previous post.

As I see it, we are just experiencing life in a different way.

In many ways you are experiencing life in the same way. All beliefs are generated by a lack of experience and acceptance of what the authority (relatively speaking) states is real.

My views don't judge them or try to sink them, as I have nothing against them. In fact, I would like one day to maybe have a rich spiritual life as they have (and who doesn't) and I am willing to learn from them.

Religion is not so much "spiritual", since there is no personal experience of "Spirit" nor is it required in most of those who cater to the church which they who follow and deem to be the voice of reason and of God.

I don't want meet "superior civilizations," I am happy in this one and it is quite interesting.

This or any life is what you or anyone as an individual makes of it. If the intellect is at the level of a child then a child's reality is the best one will create (the world is flat kinda thing where people accept what they want to regardless of whether it is real). If you are truly not interested in anything more because you feel what is in your current ability to perceive is enough, then C'es la Vie....

I don't seek "inmortality" as I accept my life as it is.

Your awareness is always relative to the lines you draw in the sand, regardless of whether it can evolve any further or not. You are in charge of your own destiny and so whatever choices you make are reflected in your current experiences.

A "weak minded observer" is as good observer as I am. I am not interested on deeper "levels of consciuous awareness". I am happy where I am.

I get that. However if you want to expand on this conversation you will have to step out of your current box, or find those who wish to live in the one you live in to keep from stretching those boundaries.

I find your reasoning lacking in experience, knowledge, and full of too much imagination which is not grounded in any connectivity to humanity. It would appear you have been indoctrinated into some sort of belief system, like religion.

Good. Maybe I can learn something from you. I am not perfect and have many defects which make me who I am. Surely, I have not been indoctrinated to anything, unless you know that better than I do.

Your acceptance of defects, and imperfections is indoctrination.

There are no limits to the Human condition other than those which are self imposed.

learning anything new is always subject to letting go of the previous ideas which keep one limited in reasoning and recognition of reality. One would actually need to want to step outside of the box that keeps one comfortable in their defective behavior patterns, before change can take place... So which is it? Are you truly happy where you are, complete without needs and is the "maybe you can learn" subject to what you are willing to accept within the box or outside of the box? You seem to say both..

[PANCHO]

I get that. However if you want to expand on this conversation you will have to step out of your current box, or find those who wish to live in the one you live in to keep from stretching those boundaries.

Joesus, if you love reason as much as you say, why didn't you learn about fallacies? If a person is happy, that does not make him/her ignorant. If a person is happy, that does not place him/her inside a box. If a person is happy, that does not mean he/she cannot learn anything or have boundaries. Maybe you self create your boundaries but not me.

The conversation is where it is and doing fine.

[Joesus]

Joesus, if you love reason as much as you say, why didn't you learn about fallacies? If a person is happy, that does not make him/her ignorant.

The world is full of people who say they are happy, and yet they can count more times than they have fingers or toes the experiences they have which does not describe happiness. Therefore, most who say they are, are saying so while making comparisons to some kind of personal idea of relative happiness.

If a person is happy, that does not place him/her inside a box.

A person does not see clearly what he/she lacks in ones own system of beliefs, without reflection/contrast from others who are not so invested in their beliefs. Whether one is open to the contrast may or may not reveal whether one's box is built with walls of judgment or fear.

If a person is happy, that does not mean he/she cannot learn anything or have boundaries.

You said you weren't perfect. That is a personal boundary based on an idea of perfection. Whether you can learn anything remains to be seen. So far you aren't very accepting of anything I have said, so I doubt you are open to hear what I have to say.

Maybe you self create your boundaries but not me.

Everyone creates personal boundaries, You are no exception.

The conversation is where it is and doing fine.

This conversation is where it is, as are you where you are, and everything is perfect in the reflection of personal systems of measure. You measure yourself according to what you make real.

[Dianah]

ah..poncho...you took the bait...

I guess we all have...

there is no talking WITH joe...he spins in circles talking AT you...good luck.

[PANCHO]

To further discuss the original Qs, I'll try to come up with some answers. I am not an expert on anything. I am just trying to expand on.

Does reason have a purpose?

It can have a practical purpose once there is a specific goal to pursue. The specific purpose would be determined by the person. If reason is a way of thinking, then there will be occasions when reason will be better suited for the task than say for example thinking by reflecting on history. It is a skill that needs a purpose. The purpose is given outside reason by the person.

When was its exact birth date?

I put earlier three main points in history that made a significant difference. But they are not written on stone.

How did people think before reason?

Probably with a lot of spiritualism. For a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When everything is understood from a religion point of view, everything appears god related. It is probably a richer experience of life.

How did they see the universe?

Through the eyes of what they understood, their believes, and feelings.

Did reason make people happier?

Yes and no. In some cases, it had a huge positive effect. For example in the field of science. It has benefited humanity in many ways and in so made people happy. On the other hand, the material achievements made people believe that it could also be used to expand non material purposes. Non material purpose can be in a deeper order of thinking. So non reasoning thoughts could tell reasoning thoughts what they want. Today, people think that they are born unhappy and they need to become happy. They need to make themselves socially through achievements, effort, pain, education, etc. So if they believe that reason is going to make them happy, they'll probably fail. Life has a lot of plasticity and reason is unbending unless by a newer reason. Once you reach a conclusion, it is hard to come out if reason tells you so. But a conclusion may depend on for example your mood, chemical balance, etc. So the same conclusion could be different at different times for the same person. Changing the point of view can also change reasoning.

What other alternatives to reason exists?

Anything that is a thought is an alternative. It may seem estrange but people already think without reasoning. Some system of thoughts are better than others depending on the occasion. Reason will probably be useless in some occasions and viceversa.

What are the pros and cons of reason?

It can be a practical way of thinking. The cons are in the limitations and virtual confinement. There is an awareness to it. Once you are aware of its limitations then the cons could be overcome. Also, a con would be the constrains it places on the mind. Another pitfall is the spiraling down that some people suffer. People confuse reasoning with thinking and can get caught in circular thoughts. They may believe that to come out they need to think more instead of less. In a way, reasoning can create an inmersive trap world of thoughts.

What causes reason, biochemistry, order, attitude, etc?

Everything has a lot to do. Some reasons will be different than others and they will appear as true to different people. Someone very sensitive will create different reasons than someone dull. Some thoughts will be logical depending on purpose.

Other Qs you may have?

[Dianah]

I liked your thoughts, can you expound on this?

People confuse reasoning with thinking and can get caught in circular thoughts.

[PANCHO]

I liked your thoughts, can you expound on this?

People confuse reasoning with thinking and can get caught in circular thoughts.

Yes. I'll give a try. Reasoning is a type of thinking. Reasoning is thinking using logic. It is used to answer questions, solve problems, prove conclusions, etc. So not all types of thoughts are reasoning thoughts. A circular thought is like a self referencing thought. It points to itself or to another reference that points back closing a circle. If you have a concept of something that points to another concept and then the other concept points back to the first, then it is a closed circle.

Example: writing a definition of something using the definition itself. "Ownership" is the relation between people and the things they own. That is a mistake because it is using own. It assumes we know what own means but that is what we are trying to define. It is circular. Using synonyms would also be circular.

I wrote the previous stuff very fast and I see a few thinks that don't sound very clear. But hey, I am not trying to impress anybody. It comes out as it comes out.

[Jakare]

Sorry I´m late to this interesting post.

Does reason have a purpose?

All have a purpose, not only reason but irrational thinking also. It happens that the purpose of the irrational thinking was the correct one thousand of years ago and as time passed we change (evolve) not as quick so we inherited some mental behaviors that have no purpose on present days.

When was its exact birth date?

You have been talking above only of "culture reason birth date" but, what about "nurture reason birth date"? Are not so much mixed that and answer not taking in to account one of them would be imcomplete?
And inside "nurture reason ´s date of birth" we need to differenciate between ontogeny and phylogeny, being both so much influenced by culture scientist are still trying to figure it out where the boundaries of each are, although if such task is achievable remains to be seen.
From an ontogenic point of view reason hasn´t a date of birth, it develops slowly and we only have averages years at which certain abilities shown themselves.
Erik Erikson and Jean Piaget have done some extensive research on that.

How did people think before reason?

Without reason its all more of an action reaction thing. Without reason you just use your baggage of learned associations and let me tell you that "baggage" can be so enormous it can be difficult to say if you are really reassoning or just reacting.

How did they see the universe?

They don´t actually see the universe because they are part of it just like any other fenomenon from a supernova to a daisy. but then again, don´t we all are part of it? So how can we judge or even know how other being see the universe when any certainty of our universe is still quite an asumption?

Did reason make people happier?

I saw a documentary the other day about monkeys. They said most of small species of monkeys didn´t take any special care of their babies in the unfortunate case it breaks its leg, It´s just not in their system, however Apes did. I´m sure that made the baby chimp happier...

What other alternatives to reason exists?

Not aware of any but again, i can´t see why should be an alternative for something like that. Life itself doesn´t need reason it is we who need it.

What are the pros and cons of reason?

That´s depends of who you´re asking to, doesn´t it?

What causes reason, biochemistry, order, attitude, etc?

Biochemistry, genes, culture...People can´t choose, they have it or they don´t (doesn´t matter what they say) but if they have it they can choose how far they want to develope it.

[PANCHO]

What other alternatives to reason exists?

Not aware of any but again, i can´t see why should be an alternative for something like that. Life itself doesn´t need reason it is we who need it.

Lets concentrate on that. Once we are aware of different types then we'll have choices.

1
There was one I mentioned earlier, the quote system. You learn quotes and keep then in a deck of cards. Then when you need help answering a question, solving a problem, etc, pull out the deck of cards and find the closest one that matches the situation.

2
Another method is the one you mention earlier, the baggage of memory, which could be called experience. With experience you have a deck of cards based on previous cause-effect.

3
Then we have reason, which tries to find the answers from scratch using the information we have. It can be tricky as it starts from assumptions, etc.

4
Another one is culture. We don't chose to be born. We find ourselves living. So we suck/absorb what ever is there (the thoughts of other people) and that in a way is also another method to respond to questions.

5
Directed by a feeling. We let the feeling control the answer

6
Directed by a state of mind other than feeling, like for example being tired or effervescing

7
educated choice/answer but not your own.

8
unconscious or driven by unconscious motive

9
indirect. Cascading motives make you chose an answer.

10
unknown. It could be something that made you chose an answer but you don't know. similar to unconscious but you are aware.

11
without mental purpose.

12
someone manipulated you to chose

13
something influenced your bias

14
different manifestations of fear

15
mechanical. your brain is wired to always chose that.

16
chemical substance influenced. it could be to the bad or to the worse.

17
physiological brain activity. Some part of the brain is more active biasing the answers.

18
physiological differences. your brain is different (connected different, more cells, etc).

19
language limited. Maybe your language does not have many words and is limited in expressions.

20
programed

21
dysfunction, sickness

22
interferenced. your thoughts are affected by others.

23
add more here