Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth

[Atheist-Lite]

Reason has long since been dismissed as a faculty and, instead, been regarded as a function. Not an innate capacity, but a learned behavior. Some acquire it better than others, as conditioned by both nature and nurture in various mixtures. Mindless instinct is primary, which conditions motivation, and only after that does reason get deployed. Emotion is ontologically prior to reason and it first conditions motivation (intent); reason is most often applied post hoc to codify a conclusion arrived at by non-rational processes.

Probably.

Your entitled to your point of view in a free and tolerant society, although throughout most of human history you'd have been impaled on a sharp stick for that level of critique. Cultural evolution is a long term process and this temporary blip of free-speech will be blotted out as soon as the cheap oil is gone. I know it sounds harsh but if you haven't a reason to say it then don't. Read between the lines. Reason is the ignorance of fools put on public display. All is dubious and Machievelian, that is the real world.

[FBM]

Reason has long since been dismissed as a faculty and, instead, been regarded as a function. Not an innate capacity, but a learned behavior. Some acquire it better than others, as conditioned by both nature and nurture in various mixtures. Mindless instinct is primary, which conditions motivation, and only after that does reason get deployed. Emotion is ontologically prior to reason and it first conditions motivation (intent); reason is most often applied post hoc to codify a conclusion arrived at by non-rational processes.

Probably.

Your entitled to your point of view in a free and tolerant society, although throughout most of human history you'd have been impaled on a sharp stick for that level of critique. Cultural evolution is a long term process and this temporary blip of free-speech will be blotted out as soon as the cheap oil is gone. I know it sounds harsh but if you haven't a reason to say it then don't. Read between the lines. Reason is the ignorance of fools put on public display. All is dubious and Machievelian, that is the real world.

How does that conflict with what I said?

[Atheist-Lite]

Reason has long since been dismissed as a faculty and, instead, been regarded as a function. Not an innate capacity, but a learned behavior. Some acquire it better than others, as conditioned by both nature and nurture in various mixtures. Mindless instinct is primary, which conditions motivation, and only after that does reason get deployed. Emotion is ontologically prior to reason and it first conditions motivation (intent); reason is most often applied post hoc to codify a conclusion arrived at by non-rational processes.

Probably.

Your entitled to your point of view in a free and tolerant society, although throughout most of human history you'd have been impaled on a sharp stick for that level of critique. Cultural evolution is a long term process and this temporary blip of free-speech will be blotted out as soon as the cheap oil is gone. I know it sounds harsh but if you haven't a reason to say it then don't. Read between the lines. Reason is the ignorance of fools put on public display. All is dubious and Machievelian, that is the real world.

How does that conflict with what I said?

[FBM]

Let's see. Stimulus:

Reason has long since been dismissed as a faculty and, instead, been regarded as a function. Not an innate capacity, but a learned behavior. Some acquire it better than others, as conditioned by both nature and nurture in various mixtures. Mindless instinct is primary, which conditions motivation, and only after that does reason get deployed. Emotion is ontologically prior to reason and it first conditions motivation (intent); reason is most often applied post hoc to codify a conclusion arrived at by non-rational processes.

Probably.

Response:

Your entitled to your point of view in a free and tolerant society, although throughout most of human history you'd have been impaled on a sharp stick for that level of critique.

Explain, please. I think that for most of human history, that level of critique would've been met with or

Cultural evolution is a long term process and this temporary blip of free-speech will be blotted out as soon as the cheap oil is gone.

I'm struggling to find a connection between reason being a learned behavior, driven by instinctive, non-rational emotions and either freedom of speech or the price of oil. Help me, please. I'm kinda dense.

I know it sounds harsh but if you haven't a reason to say it then don't.

What I said explains why I said it.

Read between the lines.

Which lines? Yours? The gaps between your aphoristic bold assertions are too great for a feeble intellect such as mine. Please give a few hints or something about how I/we might bridge those chasms. Thanks.

Reason is the ignorance of fools put on public display.

I'd tend to agree with that to a point, but probably not the same one as you. I can only speculate on how to interpret this -what you mean by it- without more context.

All is dubious and Machievelian, that is the real world.

You seem pretty sure about that.

[drl2]

For some reason all I came away with after reading that article was a picture in my mind of a group of our hominid ancestors gathered around a fire somewhere on the Serengeti for the weekly meeting of their debate club. Tonight's topic: Heavy sticks vs. pointy sticks. Are pointy sticks unnatural? Might it be possible to someday make a pointy stick that's also a heavy stick?

[DRSB]

For some reason all I came away with after reading that article was a picture in my mind of a group of our hominid ancestors gathered around a fire somewhere on the Serengeti for the weekly meeting of their debate club. Tonight's topic: Heavy sticks vs. pointy sticks. Are pointy sticks unnatural? Might it be possible to someday make a pointy stick that's also a heavy stick?

Is this more plausible: "Who put us on this earth to pursue what higher truth?"

[hiyymer]

Cultural evolution is a long term process and this temporary blip of free-speech will be blotted out as soon as the cheap oil is gone.

I'm struggling to find a connection between reason being a learned behavior, driven by instinctive, non-rational emotions and either freedom of speech or the price of oil. Help me, please. I'm kinda dense.

I have this idea of a giant rain forest, and in it one of the species that prospers is the chimpanzee. The rain forest is populated by groups of chimps defending their territories against other chimps, eating berries and insects, and hunting for monkeys. One territory is marginal and small, and there are only enough resources for a bare existence on the verge of extinction. The alpha of the group is a belligerent and abusive and dissent is squashed immediately. The troop is inclined to constant confrontations with the neighbors. In another part of the forest is a large and prosperous troop in one of the most resource rich areas of the jungle. The alpha can barely maintain his position because of the plethora of young healthy male competition and the need to maintain friendly relationships and bestow favors (chimps are notoriously political). Life is good in this troop, there is plenty of cheap oil, and there is no need to confront the neighbors as the territory is easily defended. If the chimps were human they would be talking about the superior "cultural evolution" and "rational enlightenment" of their troop over the others and be claiming full credit for their fortunate position and superior political phlosophy and be looking down at the other troops as backward and superstitious. But the rain forest is ever changing and in a thousand years some other troop might be laboring under the same delusion.

[Atheist-Lite]

I can imagine someone from a logging company cutting the forest down.

[Geoff]

I can imagine someone from a logging company cutting the forest down.

That's a bit disappointing for you, i thought you'd be imagining a Tunguska style asteriod strike.

[Atheist-Lite]

I can imagine someone from a logging company cutting the forest down.

That's a bit disappointing for you, i thought you'd be imagining a Tunguska style asteriod strike.

I'm saving the rock throwing for later.

[mistermack]

Once humans evolved speech, we evolved lies.
We naturally lie to get what we want, and it's a fundamental need for every human to try to sort out the truth from the lies.
Lying is an extremely potent social weapon, and is constantly used, even today, for people to get what they want.
So it's equally important for those being lied to, to evolve logical reason, to be able to see through lies. And the liars need to anticipate that, to make their lies more believable. So both lying and detecting a lie need a good grasp of reason and logic, so these evolved rapidly after speech evolved, as they both aided survival.

So definitely, I would agree with the title, reason is a survival weapon, but as a tool to determine the truth, and to make lies more convincing.
.

[Robert_S]

Once humans evolved speech, we evolved lies.
We naturally lie to get what we want, and it's a fundamental need for every human to try to sort out the truth from the lies.
Lying is an extremely potent social weapon, and is constantly used, even today, for people to get what they want.
So it's equally important for those being lied to, to evolve logical reason, to be able to see through lies. And the liars need to anticipate that, to make their lies more believable. So both lying and detecting a lie need a good grasp of reason and logic, so these evolved rapidly after speech evolved, as they both aided survival.

So definitely, I would agree with the title, reason is a survival weapon, but as a tool to determine the truth, and to make lies more convincing.
.

it sounds quite plausible that we developed reason to win arguments.

That's no reason not to be optimistic about reason's potential for the future. Our arms started out as front legs. What extraterrestrial observer would have predicted the hand? What would have led anyone to believe that those proto-feather things on dinosaurs would eventually lead to flight? When writing and arithmetic were being developed to keep track of finances, who would have predicted poetry and fractals?

[Atheist-Lite]

Once humans evolved speech, we evolved lies.
We naturally lie to get what we want, and it's a fundamental need for every human to try to sort out the truth from the lies.
Lying is an extremely potent social weapon, and is constantly used, even today, for people to get what they want.
So it's equally important for those being lied to, to evolve logical reason, to be able to see through lies. And the liars need to anticipate that, to make their lies more believable. So both lying and detecting a lie need a good grasp of reason and logic, so these evolved rapidly after speech evolved, as they both aided survival.

So definitely, I would agree with the title, reason is a survival weapon, but as a tool to determine the truth, and to make lies more convincing.
.

it sounds quite plausible that we developed reason to win arguments.

That's no reason not to be optimistic about reason's potential for the future. Our arms started out as front legs. What extraterrestrial observer would have predicted the hand? What would have led anyone to believe that those proto-feather things on dinosaurs would eventually lead to flight? When writing and arithmetic were being developed to keep track of finances, who would have predicted poetry and fractals?

Who would have believed when writing and arithmetic were developed to keep track of finances we would one day have nuclear weapons and trillion dollar debt mountains?
What extraterrestrial observer would have predicted the star ship enterprise and imperial earth? that one day invaders from another world would turn-up seeking fame, (informational)plunder and glory?

[FBM]

Cultural evolution is a long term process and this temporary blip of free-speech will be blotted out as soon as the cheap oil is gone.

I'm struggling to find a connection between reason being a learned behavior, driven by instinctive, non-rational emotions and either freedom of speech or the price of oil. Help me, please. I'm kinda dense.

I have this idea of a giant rain forest, and in it one of the species that prospers is the chimpanzee. The rain forest is populated by groups of chimps defending their territories against other chimps, eating berries and insects, and hunting for monkeys. One territory is marginal and small, and there are only enough resources for a bare existence on the verge of extinction. The alpha of the group is a belligerent and abusive and dissent is squashed immediately. The troop is inclined to constant confrontations with the neighbors. In another part of the forest is a large and prosperous troop in one of the most resource rich areas of the jungle. The alpha can barely maintain his position because of the plethora of young healthy male competition and the need to maintain friendly relationships and bestow favors (chimps are notoriously political). Life is good in this troop, there is plenty of cheap oil, and there is no need to confront the neighbors as the territory is easily defended. If the chimps were human they would be talking about the superior "cultural evolution" and "rational enlightenment" of their troop over the others and be claiming full credit for their fortunate position and superior political phlosophy and be looking down at the other troops as backward and superstitious. But the rain forest is ever changing and in a thousand years some other troop might be laboring under the same delusion.

Ah, gotcha. Now I'm up to speed. Yeah, that pattern or tendency has repeated itself many times throughout history, in one version or another, eh? Kinda like the Lutherans (I think) say that individual and family wealth is a sign of one's having been divinely rewarded and, thus, worthier than others. Or something along those lines. Maybe it was the Calvinists. Anyway...like that.