rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) (12/22/85)
CONCEPTS OF REASON AND FORCE
Reason as a Potential
Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material
provided by man's senses. "Man is the rational animal" means: the
faculty of reason distinguishes man from other animals. To say man is
rational is to say he has the faculty of reason. The opposite of rational
in this sense would be to lack the faculty of reason. Although man in
general is rational, an individual man may be irrational--e.g., if he is
brain-dead or psychotic. Here irrational means incapable of reason.
When I say force is the opposite of reason, I am *not* saying the
victim or the initiator of force necessarily becomes incapable of reason.
(Although it is clear that force could destroy the victim's brain and his
faculty of reason.) To be precise, initiation of force to gain values is
*opposed* to the faculty of reason. I will argue, after some intermediate
steps, that initiating force to gain values is detrimental to the faculty
of reason--both to that of the victim *and* the initiator.
To speak of man's faculty of reason is to speak of his potential to
reason. Man also has other potentials, such as the faculty of vision--
meaning he has the potential to see. When certain conditions are met (his
eyes are open, etc.) the potential to see becomes the actuality of
seeing--or sight. Although man continues to have the faculty of sight
when his eyes are closed, he does not have sight without fulfilling its
conditions.
Reason as an Actuality
When the proper conditions are met, the actuality of reason can be
realized. Man reasons when his consciousness acts to identify and
integrate the material provided by his senses. Reasoning is an action of
a human consciousness.
There are two concepts sometimes identified by the word "force" that
can be contrasted with this aspect of reason. If you have to move a heavy
object, you might say you have to use force. You wouldn't attempt to move
it with reasoning but would use physical means to achieve a result in
reality. (This is not to say that you wouldn't use reason to find the
most effective physical means.) I would not say that force in this sense
is the opposite of reason; the concepts are in two different categories.
Reasoning has to do with acts of consciousness; force deals with states of
existence. (The concepts are related, of course, because it is existence
that consciousness is aware of.)
Force is also used to name an act of consciousness. You have probably
said at one time or another, "I really didn't want to do that; but I knew
that I should; so I forced myself to." Here force is naming what you do
in your consciousness to cause yourself to take a physical action you know
you should take even though your emotions prompt you to do something
else. The more common name for this concept is "will." Again force in
this sense is not the opposite of reason even though both are acts of
consciousness because the concepts are in two different categories. The
result of reasoning is a conclusion--a state of consciousness. The result
of will is action (sometimes mental and sometimes physical). Reasoning is
an act of cognition and can used to decide what physical means to use to
achieve an end. The will is the act of consciousness that puts those
physical means into action. Reasoning can tell you to do something, but
until you will yourself to do it, it won't get done.
When I say force is the opposite of reason, I am referring to a
concept of force that is *different* from "force = physical means" or
"force = my act of will causing me to do something I don't want to do."
The opposite of reason is "force = physical means used by someone else to
get me to do something I don't want to do." I will say more on this later.
What mental process is identified by the concept of reason? Such an
idea does not subsume daydreaming or wishing, for example. One
distinction between the process of reason and other acts of consciousness
is the product of the process--its output.
The Result of Reason
The output of reason is a state of consciousness--a mental product
--e.g., a conclusion--something that has the potential of being
knowledge. A conclusion that 2 + 2 = 4 would be knowledge; a conclusion
that 2 + 2 = 5 would be an error. Knowledge is an identification of a
fact of reality by a consciousness. This identification is a state of
consciousness consistent with a fact of reality. A conclusion identifying
a fact of reality is reasonable; a false conclusion is unreasonable or
irrational.
Notice that there is no concept to name a state of consciousness
achieved by physical means. A conclusion "forced by logic" comes from
actions of consciousness. A child might make a mistake in reasoning and
conclude that 2 + 2 = 5; but once he knows the truth, even though force
may get him to say a falsehood, physical means will not make him believe
it.
The decision to gain a value by force is irrational because the
conclusion is inconsistent with reality--the facts of reality are such
that correct reasoning would conclude that a policy of living by the
initiation of force is opposed to reason. Someone (with the knowledge
available to the average American) who valued a happy, long life and who
applied reason without mistake would conclude that creating and trading is
more efficacious than looting.
(If you believe it is possible to live a life of crime and have a
happy, long life, I suggest you do two things to disabuse yourself of the
notion. First, do some serious introspection and ask yourself how happy
*you* would be with such a life. Second, do some reading of case studies
of criminals to see the emotional state of this species.)
To say that in normal circumstances the initiation of force to gain
values is irrational, is not to say force is irrational in all contexts.
It would be rational to pull your lover from the path of a car if there is
no time for reason. Here you are preserving, not gaining, a value.
Stealing a car to prevent World War III might be rational. Here you
temporarily gain a value to allow you to preserve your own and your
"victim's" values. Using force in self-defense is rational. Stealing a
loaf of bread in Marie Antoinette's day may have been rational. It is
certainly possible for man to devise political systems that make it
difficult to distinguish the rational from the irrational.
Whether initiating force is irrational requires an analysis of the
context. Principles apply only within the context of their derivation.
Within that context they are absolute. Outside of it they are irrelevant.
The context necessary to derive the principle that the initiation of force
to gain values is irrational is that it is possible to survive by the
values you create.
It is, of course, a non-sequitur to claim that someone did not use
reason just because his conclusion is false. A mental activity may be
reasoning even if the result is unreasonable because man is fallible.
Man's knowledge does not automatically correspond to reality; he must
apply a method and he may make mistakes. What conditions must a process
of consciousness meet in order to be classified as reasoning?
The Method of Reason
Reason is a process of consciousness that has the potential of
producing states of consciousness consistent with reality. Some of man's
states of conscious are automatically consistent with reality--his
perceptions. But most of man's knowledge is held as abstractions--as
integrations of percepts into first order concepts and lower order
concepts into higher order (more abstract) concepts.
Reason is the process of consciousness that produces abstractions
consistent with reality. Do do this, reason must meet two essential
criteria. First, to qualify as reasoning, a process must deal in
abstractions ultimately based on the evidence of the senses. Second, a
process of reason must ensure that new conclusions integrate
non-contradictorily with all previous knowledge of the reasoner.
A process that knowingly starts with an arbitrary assertion--i.e., a
state of consciousness that has no sensory tie to reality, such as a
whim--does not qualify as reason. (Someone may mistakenly reason from
such a starting point; but his conclusion will say nothing of reality; and
when the arbitrary nature of the starting point is shown to him, he cannot
reasonably continue.)
Similarly, a process that knowingly tolerates contradictions is not
reason.
When I say you are not reasoning if you justify your initiation of
force by pointing to your desire--an emotion, I am alluding to the fact
that the first criteria of reasoning is violated. An emotion is not a
primary as is the evidence of your senses. Emotions are products of
consciousness with somatic consequences. In brief, an emotion is your
lightning fast, automatic response to something you have identified as
having a particular relationship to you and your values. You feel fear of
things that threaten you, anger at things you consider unfair, sadness at
values you lose, pleasure when you gain values, etc. Note that values are
also states of consciousness and abstractions. As such they may be
correct or incorrect identifications of facts of reality. A method of
reaching conclusions by starting with whatever you happen to value as a
primary is not reason.
Emotions are a valuable and enjoyable aspect of being human. An
examination of your emotions may give you information on what you think
about reality; but emotions give you no independent information of
reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition.
Reason vs. Force
All the aspects of reason discussed thus far apply in society or in a
desert island environment--i.e., for a single human in isolation. But the
concept of force that is the opposite of reason does not arise except in
social situations--i.e., when more than one person is involved.
Force is the use of physical means by one person (or group) to cause
another person to act against his reason. Force is contrasted with
reason--getting someone to act by transferring knowledge (states of
consciousness consistent with reality) from one person's mind to another.
This is the sense in which force is the opposite of reason. Force
cannot even be defined or grasped except in opposition to reason. Your
earliest concept of force might refer to having to do things you don't
want to do. As you mature you will learn that not everything you want to
do is necessarily reasonable. Later you will differentiate instances
where you change your actions because you are influenced by physical means
from instances where you are influenced by the force of an argument--by
reason.
Reason, in this context, refers to the process by which you get
someone else to reach a conclusion. A process of reason would use
abstractions ultimately based in reality (the one reality there is, the
one you both are aware of with your senses). If you use a process of
reason, you would point out contradictions in the conclusions of the other
person *and* correct your own conclusions when contradictions are revealed.
Force bypasses reason. Force says some private inaccessible-to-others
state of consciousness justifies using physical means to make someone act
as if they had reached a conclusion by reason.
It is in dealing with others that force--physical force--is the
opposite of reason.
Attempting to gain values by the use of force because you feel you can
do so violates the essence of reason that says to start with reality--not
arbitrary states of consciousness.
A policy of trying to live by force is unreasonable if you value
happiness.
The values needed to sustain human life must be created by applying
reason to the problem of survival. A policy of trying to gain values by
initiating physical force will lower the productivity of the victim--and
the victimizer has produced nothing. Initiation of force to gain value
cuts one little tie to reality in the mind of the forcer (as he acts
against the cause--the victim's use of reason--while desiring the
effect--the values produced) and one link to reality of the victim (whose
actions but for the intervention of the forcer's arbitrary contents of
consciousness would have yielded him a value). If you want to know the
results of such a policy carried to extremes, see the psychological case
studies of the victims and guards of the Nazi concentration camps. If you
want to see the existential effects on productivity, compare the relative
productivity of the more free (from force initiated by others) countries
with culturally similar but less free countries--say West Germany vs. East
Germany, or South Korea vs. North Korea.
In the field of social interaction, reason produces values and force
destroys productivity.
FORCE IS THE OPPOSITE OF REASON.
--
Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (12/28/85)
I abbreviated the text of Bob as faithfully as I could. The words introdueced by me in the process are in [] brackets. > CONCEPTS OF REASON AND FORCE > > Reason as a Potential > Reason is the faculty [of man] that identifies and integrates the > material provided by man's senses. > To speak of man's faculty of reason is to speak of his potential to > reason. Man also has other potentials, such as the faculty of vision-- > > Reason as an Actuality > When the proper conditions are met, the actuality of reason can be > realized. > get me to do something I don't want to do." I will say more on this later. > What mental process is identified by the concept of reason? Such an > idea does not subsume daydreaming or wishing, for example. One > distinction between the process of reason and other acts of consciousness > is the product of the process--its output, [another is its method]. > > The Result of Reason > The output of reason is a state of consciousness--a mental product > --e.g., a conclusion--something that has the potential of being > knowledge. A conclusion that 2 + 2 = 4 would be knowledge; a conclusion > that 2 + 2 = 5 would be an error. Knowledge is an identification of a > fact of reality by a consciousness. This identification is a state of > consciousness consistent with a fact of reality. A conclusion identifying > a fact of reality is reasonable; a false conclusion is unreasonable or > irrational. > > The Method of Reason > What conditions must a process > of consciousness meet in order to be classified as reasoning? > Reason is a process of consciousness that has the potential of > producing states of consciousness consistent with reality. Perceptions > are automatically consistent with reality. But most of man's knowledge > is held as abstractions--as integrations of percepts into first order > concepts and [subsequently] into higher order (more abstract) concepts. > > Reason is the process of consciousness that produces abstractions > consistent with reality. To do this, reason must meet two essential > criteria. First, to qualify as reasoning, a process must deal in > abstractions ultimately based on the evidence of the senses. Second, a > process of reason must ensure that new conclusions integrate > non-contradictorily with all previous knowledge of the reasoner. > A process that starts with an arbitrary assertion [which] has no > sensory tie to reality does not qualify as reason. ([If one] reason[s] > from such a starting point his conclusion will say nothing of reality.) > Similarly, a process that knowingly tolerates contradictions is not > reason. > Emotions are products of consciousness with somatic consequences, > while they are a valuable and enjoyable aspect of being human, they > are not tools of cognition. > > Reason vs. Force > All the aspects of reason discussed thus far apply [to] a single human. > But the concept of force that is the opposite of reason does arise > when more than one person is involved. > Force is the use of physical means by one person (or group) to cause > another person to act against his reason. Force is contrasted with > reason--getting someone to act by transferring knowledge (states of > consciousness consistent with reality) from one person's mind to another. > > This is the sense in which force is the opposite of reason. Force > cannot even be defined or grasped except in opposition to reason. Your > earliest concept of force might refer to having to do things you don't > want to do. As you mature you will learn that not everything you want to > do is necessarily reasonable. Later you will differentiate instances > where you change your actions because you are influenced by physical means > from instances where you are influenced by the force of an argument--by > reason. > Reason, in this context, refers to the process by which you get > someone else to reach a conclusion. If you use a process of > reason, you would point out contradictions in the conclusions of the other > person *and* correct your own conclusions when contradictions are revealed. > Force bypasses reason. Force says some private inaccessible-to-others > state of consciousness justifies using physical means to make someone act > as if they had reached a conclusion by reason. > It is in dealing with others that force--physical force--is the > opposite of reason. > Attempting to gain values by the use of force because you feel you can > do so violates the essence of reason that says to start with reality--not > arbitrary states of consciousness. > A policy of trying to live by force is unreasonable if you value > happiness. > The values needed to sustain human life must be created by applying > reason to the problem of survival. A policy of trying to gain values by > initiating physical force will lower the productivity of the victim--and > the victimizer has produced nothing. Initiation of force to gain value > cuts one little tie to reality in the mind of the forcer (as he acts > against the cause--the victim's use of reason--while desiring the > effect--the values produced) and one link to reality of the victim (whose > actions but for the intervention of the forcer's arbitrary contents of > consciousness would have yielded him a value). If you want to know the > results of such a policy carried to extremes, see > the Nazi concentration camps. If you > want to see the existential effects on productivity, compare the relative > productivity of the more free (from force initiated by others) countries > with culturally similar but less free countries--say West Germany vs. East > Germany, or South Korea vs. North Korea. > In the field of social interaction, reason produces values and force > destroys productivity. > FORCE IS THE OPPOSITE OF REASON. > > -- > Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846 Bob writes: > Force is the use of physical means by one person (or group) to cause > another person to act against his reason. His examples do not explain the following: If someone is not reasoning correctly (i.e. starts from a whimsical assumption, tolerates contradictions, etc.), does he act according to reason? In particular, if this individual is caused to act against its wish, does it mean that it is forced? Later I will point to the difficulties involved in this problem. Bob writes: > to see the effects on productivity, compare the > productivity of the more free (from force initiated by others) countries > with culturally similar but less free countries--say West Germany vs. East > Germany, or South Korea vs. North Korea. As one may notice, West Germany has substancial taxes, conscription, even censorship (one is not allowed to advocate racial hatred). South Korea, unlike West Germany, is definitely an oppresive country, yet the rate of economical growth is larger. This is not a fortunate example of force being an enemy of productivity. Bob objects to force in three ways: 1. He defines reason as an individual faculty, then redefines it as a way of conveying one's point of view, then claims that force as a tool to make someone agree is incompatible with the reason in its second meaning. 2. He argues that the force as a tool to gain values is ineffective: the values gained do not provide happines as large as in the case when force is not used. These two approaches do not address directly force as used by state or similar entity. 3. Force is bad for productivity. This is not ultimately convincing: some slave societies had larger productivity than some free ones, this relative argument is downright dangerous. Bob is not addressing at all the problem of norms in a society. It seems that he needs a dangerous loophole: a society must create rational laws, then forcing people to obey is not forcing them to act against their reason, since reason should make them to obey the laws! This is an opening to "we know better what is good for you" approach, and consistent with my view that objectivism, if fully developed, will demand a state of the Platonic form: dictatorship of the wise over the irrational multitude. The idea of such a system would not be questioned, the only requirement would be that the wise should be wise indeed. Since objective reasoning is, according to objectivists, capable of producing conclusions which should be acceptable to ALL rational humans, the existence of the people sufficiently wise to be trusted with the absolute rule over the rest need not to be doubted. If in turn this loophole is not use, then I do not understand how Bob wants to solve the problem of necessary norms. Piotr Berman