Reason

[Sara S]

from A.Word.A.Day
with Anu Garg

A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
The being cannot be termed rational or virtuous, who obeys any authority, but that of reason.
-Mary Wollstonecraft, reformer and writer (27 Apr 1759-1797)

[podfish]

from A.Word.A.Day
with Anu Garg

A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
The being cannot be termed rational or virtuous, who obeys any authority, but that of reason.
-Mary Wollstonecraft, reformer and writer (27 Apr 1759-1797)

Words to live by. But according to George Lakoff, if you're the kind of person who lives by them, you're a liberal!

[Wollstonecraft is using] what is called Enlightenment reason, from 1650, from Descartes. And here’s what that reasoning says: What makes us human beings is that we are rational animals and rationality is defined in terms of logic. Recall that Descartes was a mathematician and logician. He argued that reasoning is like seeing a logical proof. Secondly, he argued that our ideas can fit the world because, as he said, “God would not lie to us.” The assumption is that ideas directly fit the world.

They’re also, Descartes argued, disembodied. He said that if ideas were embodied, were part of the body, then physical laws would apply to them, and we would not have free will. And in fact, they are embodied, physical laws do apply to them, and we do not have absolute free will. We’re trapped by what the neural systems of our brains have accumulated. We can only see what our brains allow us to understand, and that’s an important thing.
So what he said, basically, was that there are no frames, no embodiment, no metaphor — none of the things people really use to reason. Moreover if we think logically and we all have the same reasoning, if you just tell people the facts, they should reason to the same correct conclusion. And that just isn’t true. And that keeps not being true, and liberals keep making the same mistake year after year after year. So that’s a very important thing.

https://www.salon.com/2017/01/15/don...d-elect-trump/

[Star Man]

There is another way to know the universe besides through reason or religion. Through the practice of shamanic journeying, one can know the universe directly. Reason has brought us both positive and negative consequences. Science has produced vaccines, cures, X-rays, MRIs, and advanced surgical techniques. Science, the offspring of reason, has also brought us nuclear weapons and nuclear waste, pesticides, and herbicides. The people attacking women, gays, and birth control believe they are operating from reason and that they are virtuous and rational. I utterly disagree that reason is the only authority to obey.

Star Man

....
The being cannot be termed rational or virtuous, who obeys any authority, but that of reason.
-Mary Wollstonecraft, reformer and writer (27 Apr 1759-1797)

[podfish]

There is another way to know the universe besides through reason or religion....

first off, 'reason' isn't an authority. You're not the only one to make that mistake; it's also made about 'science', which again is not an authority or a belief system but a technique. Religion claims to be authoritative, in that its core principles are supposed to be accepted without question (you can nibble around the edges, if you're a Talmudic scholar or a Jesuit).

Reasoning consists of, starting from prior knowledge/beliefs, analyzing any new information to develop a more accurate world-view. You can also use reason to ensure that your existing world-view is self-consistent.
That's pretty much it. So 'reason' won't likely lead you to accept shamanistic journeying, given that it's difficult to provide evidence of it, but it's true that reason and rational analysis aren't guaranteed to provide the 'truth', which really means an accurate and complete understanding of reality.

[Star Man]

Fascinating. I used the word "authority" because Mary Shelley used it in her definition, to wit, "The being cannot be termed rational or virtuous, who obeys any authority, but that of reason." I have not made any mistake whatsoever.
Having spent years in a scientific laboratory, I am well aware of the rules of empiricism, among which is the rule that observations must be reproducible. Shamanic journeying is not reproducible per se, because the observation is unique to the observer. As you say, science provides a self-consistent picture of the universe, but it is not necessarily an accurate picture or a "true" picture. Shamanic journeying provides a self-consistent picture of the universe for the shamanic practitioner him- or herself. It is by its very nature not subject to the rules of empiricism. However, for the shamanic journeyer, the evidence for the journey is incontrovertible.

Star Man

first off, 'reason' isn't an authority. You're not the only one to make that mistake; ...