24 replies to this topic

[Incognito]

We like to think of ourselves as reasonable beings. We accept what our reason tells us to be true and reject what it tells us to be false. But to what extent is it reasonable to take this stance?

[iSilurian]

Incognito, on 16 September 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

We like to think of ourselves as reasonable beings. We accept what our reason tells us to be true and reject what it tells us to be false. But to what extent is it reasonable to take this stance?

Reason is all that we have, we should follow it to the fullest.  If it turns out to harm us, then our reason will take into account the newly discovered flaws. There is no flaw in using reason.

[Pascal]

As Descartes famously said when he started questioning what exactly he can trust "I think, therefore, I am" (not in english of course).

He realised he couldn't possibly know whether anything around him was true or just an illusion. He couldn't know if you exist or you just appear to exist. He figured he could only trust one thing and that was his own mind.

They go into descartes ideas here if you're interested enough to give it a watch(forgot which part, probably around end of 1, start of 2):

[wundermonk]

Reason is ALL that we have. If reason contradicts scripture, we ought to be open enough to reinterpret scripture.

For instance, let us imagine religion X whose "holy book" says that all those children born on SATurday are SATanic. Hence, it is one's duty to kill those born on Saturday.

If we were practitioners of religion X, what should we do?

Edited by wundermonk, 17 September 2011 - 03:26 AM.

[Pascal]

Reason is fine, i think its more or less all we got but it isn't flawless. Reason doesn't change, the idea of what is "reasonable" does change though. For example, in early islam slavery was fine but in the modern world that obviously isn't OK. Problem is it explicitly tells us its ok. We need to constantly reinterpret and therefore change an old system to match the modern world in which i think its more reasonable to abandon an archaic system entirely.. (talking specifically about the Abrahamic religions)

[.InshAllah.]

What do you mean by reason?

[mun3t]

kingpomba, on 17 September 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

Reason is fine, i think its more or less all we got but it isn't flawless. Reason doesn't change, the idea of what is "reasonable" does change though. For example, in early islam slavery was fine but in the modern world that obviously isn't OK. Problem is it explicitly tells us its ok. We need to constantly reinterpret and therefore change an old system to match the modern world in which i think its more reasonable to abandon an archaic system entirely.. (talking specifically about the Abrahamic religions)

Greetings!

Is it reasonable that a man and a women should not shake hands?

[Incognito]

.InshAllah., on 17 September 2011 - 06:51 AM, said:

What do you mean by reason?

That is a good question. What do YOU mean by reason? What is reason? I would like to hear others definition as well.

I suppose what I meant was more on the lines of what is logically true, or is true through reason. .

I opened this thread because I was contemplating Socrates 'We are to follow an argument wherever it may take us' and then Nietzsche when we wrote that men do not follow reason. They believe, then they reason.

[MysticKnight]

Incognito, on 17 September 2011 - 09:56 AM, said:

They believe, then they reason.

This is true.

[Muhammed Ali]

If anyone can give an example of where reason should not be followed and we would show them that they did not use reason.

This is actually a very important subject because there are so many groups (muslims and non-muslims) out there who are against the use of 'reason'. Unfortunately they seem to have misunderstood many things.

Edited by Muhammed Ali, 17 September 2011 - 10:44 AM.

[.InshAllah.]

I think reason is broader than simply logical arguments.  In Islam 'Aql' includes the moral awareness as well for example.  Yet moral knowledge isnt known through logical argumentation.  It is believed first, then logical arguments come second.  the same could be said for other beliefs like belief that the external world is real and that we arent dreaming etc.

[Incognito]

Quote

If anyone can give an example of where reason should not be followed and we would show them that they did not use reason.

This is actually a very important subject because there are so many groups (muslims and non-muslims) out there who are against the use of 'reason'. Unfortunately they seem to have misunderstood many things.

How conclusive can reason ever be?

.InshAllah., on 17 September 2011 - 11:39 AM, said:

I think reason is broader than simply logical arguments.  In Islam 'Aql' includes the moral awareness as well for example.  Yet moral knowledge isnt known through logical argumentation.  It is believed first, then logical arguments come second.  the same could be said for other beliefs like belief that the external world is real and that we arent dreaming etc.

Is that always the case?

[.InshAllah.]

^For basic truths I think it is.

[Incognito]

.InshAllah., on 17 September 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:

^For basic truths I think it is.

Now what is a 'basic' truth?

Kant's deontology states that one must not lie even when an innocent persons life is at risk.

[.InshAllah.]

Like justice/mercy/compassion is good.

Edited by .InshAllah., 17 September 2011 - 06:13 PM.

[Gypsy]

Reasoning doesn’t work well on things that are very abstract.

[iSilurian]

Zareen, on 18 September 2011 - 10:48 AM, said:

Reasoning doesn’t work well on things that are very abstract.

nothing works well on abstract things.

[Incognito]

.InshAllah., on 17 September 2011 - 06:13 PM, said:

Like justice/mercy/compassion is good.

Then why is it not reasonable to reason whether those things are actually 'good'?

Or it is? Surely the moral nihilist's believe so. Are they correct?

[.InshAllah.]

If you could reason about these things, then at the very least, this reasoning would come second.  First you would believe, then you would reason.

[alimohamad40]

reason should not be mistaken with the faulty reasoning lead by self desire



reason is to be followed in matters of belief (usool aldeen) = fundamentals of the religion or the Aqeeda

once the fundamentals are established then the details of the religion we would follow the reasoning of the masoom because we established with pure analysis and existentially that he is masoom therefore we need to imitate in this regard because the Devil is in the details and our reasoning might becomes faulty when the matter gets difficult because it will not stay as reasoning but elements from the self desire will go into it ,

this doesn't mean that the details of the religion are not based on reasoning and those reasoning can not be contemplated but it just means you can not do ijtihad in opposition to the clear text unless it contradicts the fundamentals

[Ishraq]

Salam,

Quote

I suggest that the problem is not in Reason, i.e. the flow of inference which leads us from premises to conclusions, but in Language, or in other words, Conception. The concepts we use in arguments are purely mental constructions, fragmented from a whole reality. However, at its best, it gives us a very good description of Reality as a fragmented whole (which is not necessarily True to Reality, but is True to our experience with Reality - arguably, it probably is not True to Reality itself). At its worst, we come up with inconsistent descriptions of Reality, wherein some fragments contradict other fragments. This is because we capture the wrong concepts from Reality - we fragment clumsily and vaguely. For a very crude example, we fragment a heap of sand into one concept, and then we want to know the nature of a heap of sand - when is a collection of sand a "heap"?

What is supposed to be your conclusion from all this? That all our propositions about reality are false because we aren’t able to capture reality as it exactly is? Assuming it is (for the sake of argument), why in the world would I accept everything you’ve just said? It seems to me that your position on this question is self-refuting i.e., everything you’ve just said, because you hold that we cannot capture reality as it is, does not therefore capture the nature of reality as it is. Perhaps it’s completely other than what you’ve just said. And the distinction (as an answer to the problem I’ve just raised) between ‘reality as it is’ and our ‘experience of it’ seems ad hoc; for what is the basis that requires it and how do you know it? The fact that we err in judgments? Well if that’s the case, then it would follow that every time we agree on the truth of certain matters, we are in fact capturing reality as it really is. But that’s absurd, for it is self-evident that there can be cases where people may have agreement on a certain question but are nevertheless wrong about its answer e.g., materialists or the impious.

Quote

[T]he problem is not in Reason, i.e. the flow of inference which leads us from premises to conclusions [...]

You’re equating reason here with one of its operations i.e., inferring one thing from one or more other things. But there’s more to reason than that. In fact, conception, I would argue, is the first operation of reason, so if you problematize it, then you’re in fact stating that there’s a problem with reason itself, which would go against your initial assertion.

Quote

[T]he problem is [….] in Language, or in other words, Conception.

Language and conception are two distinct phenomena, for people with distinct languages can conceptualize the same thing. Why are you equating them? It would seem that if there is a problem, it’s either in one of them or both. And in whichever one it is, why is it in that one?

Quote

The concepts we use in arguments are purely mental constructions, fragmented from a whole reality.

Do pray tell us why.

Quote

[...] We normally take this to be solid true. However, the concept of Socrates is loaded with vagueness and ambiguity. The concept of Man likewise. The concept of Mortal non the less.

What is so vague and ambiguous about them? They seem pretty clear to pretty much everyone.

Quote

We see father, mother, brother, sister, friend, and we see that in some way we are all similar.

What would you say this ‘similarity’ consists in though?

Quote

Somehow, we can "perceive" this similarity without describing it fully. We call this "Man" (or human). And we see that each of us is a Man but with certain variations. We are instances of Man. Such an instance is "Socrates" placed in a socio-historic context. Then, we see other instances of Man all moving and speaking and showing signs of awareness, and then suddenly, they stop moving, speaking or showing signs of awareness, and their physical components corrode and decompose. This situation is an event, "Death", and this Man who is with all definiteness moving to "Death" is called "Mortal".

And the problem is…?

Quote

But questions already arise - we fragment a vague similarity called "Man", but what is Man? And the same with Socrates? Is it the body? The soul? The soul and body? The Idea? And what, really, is Mortality and Death?

The definition of man, I’d argue’ is a ‘rational animal’. With Socrates, insofar as he’s Socrates (i.e., the individual), a definition can’t be given. But what does he consist in as an individual is neither the soul nor body taken alone, but taken together. Mortality is the potential separation of the soul from the body and death is the actual separation.

[ImAli]

It depends on the person and their mental state. Some people are completely unreasonable...for example serial killers believe they have a very good reason to go around murdering people and that their actions are completely within reason.

[MysticKnight]

Without reasoning about morality, is our belief in morality knowledge? Or is it only when we investigate what morality is through reasoning that we actual have knowledge of morality instead of belief. I don't know, it's hard to say.

[Philip]

Sahih International 2:44

Do you order righteousness of the people and forget yourselves while you recite the Scripture? Then will you not reason?


Sahih International 2:73

So, We said, "Strike the slain man with part of it." Thus does Allah bring the dead to life, and He shows you His signs that you might reason.

Sahih International 2:134

Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and the day, and the [great] ships which sail through the sea with that which benefits people, and what Allah has sent down from the heavens of rain, giving life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness and dispersing therein every [kind of] moving creature, and [His] directing of the winds and the clouds controlled between the heaven and the earth are signs for a people who use reason.

Sahih International 2:242

Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you might use reason.

Reason, a free mind , aql in Arabic .. Is our strongest asset

The more we reason the better.

More reason = more understanding