Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Reason as will

Expand Messages
  • Renato Cezar
    Hello All, Please, I´m looking for any explanation on how our will can be understood as prior to our reason, or the origin of our reason. It would be like an
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello All,

      Please, I´m looking for any explanation on how our will can be
      understood as prior to our reason, or the origin of our reason. It
      would be like an epistemological explanation of WHY the will is the
      foundation of reason, or anyway a prerequisite for reason.

      Thank you very much,

      Renato
    • Jeffrey Tate
      Well, a 2 year-old child certainly has plenty of will with a minimum of reason. Jeffrey L. Tate ... From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, a 2 year-old child certainly has plenty of will with a minimum of
        reason.


        Jeffrey L. Tate

        -----Original Message-----
        From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of Renato Cezar
        Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 7:39 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] Reason as will



        Hello All,

        Please, I´m looking for any explanation on how our will can be
        understood as prior to our reason, or the origin of our reason. It
        would be like an epistemological explanation of WHY the will is the
        foundation of reason, or anyway a prerequisite for reason.

        Thank you very much,

        Renato





        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
        nothing!

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist



        _____

        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



        * Visit your group "existlist
        <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.


        * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


        * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


        _____




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Renato Cezar
        This is certainly a kind of explanation which is acceptable and more useful than one may think, as being quite a biological approach. But I really mean how, or
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 28, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          This is certainly a kind of explanation which is acceptable and more
          useful than one may think, as being quite a biological approach.

          But I really mean how, or why, at any moment, my will rules over my
          reason? Lets supose I'm studying and about to rationally agree with
          some mathematical axiom. Then how or why my reason is fully depending
          on my will in order to realize the truth of the axiom?

          Maybe another way would be to ask how the will is the foundation of
          logics?

          And, btw, could it possibly be a matter of free will?

          Thanks,

          Renato


          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Tate" <jtate@t...> wrote:
          >
          > Well, a 2 year-old child certainly has plenty of will with a
          minimum of
          > reason.
          >
          >
          > Jeffrey L. Tate
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]
          On
          > Behalf Of Renato Cezar
          > Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 7:39 PM
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [existlist] Reason as will
          >
          >
          >
          > Hello All,
          >
          > Please, I´m looking for any explanation on how our will can be
          > understood as prior to our reason, or the origin of our reason. It
          > would be like an epistemological explanation of WHY the will is the
          > foundation of reason, or anyway a prerequisite for reason.
          >
          > Thank you very much,
          >
          > Renato
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
          > nothing!
          >
          > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
          >
          >
          >
          > _____
          >
          > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          >
          >
          >
          > * Visit your group "existlist
          > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.
          >
          >
          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
          >
          >
          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
          >
          >
          > _____
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • hermanbtriplegood
          I think it has more to do with the role that volition plays in making judgments. Admittedly, the word reason can be a bit ambiguous. If, as Kant suggests, we
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 28, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I think it has more to do with the role that volition plays in making
            judgments. Admittedly, the word reason can be a bit ambiguous. If, as
            Kant suggests, we look at reason as an executive faculty, the
            volitional aspect, in other words, will, in some fashion, comes into
            play in the activity of making judgments about things. If, however,
            we look at reason in its self-legislative capacity, as a
            systematization of lawful thinking, the role of volition is less
            prominent. It is one thing to connote, by will, a pure spontaneity of
            volition that can outstrip the legislatively imposed limits of
            reasonable judgment making, thereby, to some degree, perhaps
            accounting for the possibility of error; it is quite another thing to
            connote, by will, a kind of autonomy or self-regulation or self-
            legislation that compels affirmation; for instance, we are compelled
            to affirm the logical necessity of the law of excluded middle.

            There is a sense, with Kant, where reason, in the form of
            understanding, has a pure spontaneity to it, but, not all that is
            spontaneous is necessarily operating purely volitionally, exercising,
            as it were, free will. At times, the terms will and reason seem to be
            very much synonymous, or, at least, involving quite a bit of
            conceptual overlap.

            An example of free agency without will as we understand it would be
            the movements and activities of a mere animal, obviously a free
            agent, capable of self-initiated activity, and to some extent at
            least, self-directed intentional activity; however, we would not
            normally call this free agency free will in the human sense, nor
            would we attribute to such intentional activity on the part of the
            animal anything closely resembling a human use of reason.

            How many times have you driven to work, or gone from one place to
            another, and, after the fact, realized that through the entire trip
            you were really not fully conscious of it all? You made all the right
            turns, you stopped at the red lights, you did not get lost, all in
            all, you acted as if you were consciously engaged in a thoughtful
            way, exercisng free will, or so it might seem, even making crucial
            decisions that could be matters of life and death, yet, in an
            important sense, you were consciously disengaged, and all of that
            *cognition* happened pretty much automatically, without real volition
            in the sense of an exercise of free will.

            There is good reason to believe that since perception, and even
            emotion, are already complex cognitive states, that cognition alone
            does not require the exercise of free will or volition. There is a
            threshold above which such cognition could become conscious
            volitional reasoning, and even the setting of means and ends in a
            practical fashion having moral as well as theoretical implications.
            However, the more closely you examine the operation of presumably
            volitional activity at the more basic levels, the less like volition
            it appears to become and the more like sophisticated automatism it
            appears to be.

            Hb3g

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Renato Cezar" <jr108@i...> wrote:
            >
            > This is certainly a kind of explanation which is acceptable and
            more
            > useful than one may think, as being quite a biological approach.
            >
            > But I really mean how, or why, at any moment, my will rules over my
            > reason? Lets supose I'm studying and about to rationally agree with
            > some mathematical axiom. Then how or why my reason is fully
            depending
            > on my will in order to realize the truth of the axiom?
            >
            > Maybe another way would be to ask how the will is the foundation of
            > logics?
            >
            > And, btw, could it possibly be a matter of free will?
            >
            > Thanks,
            >
            > Renato
            >
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Tate" <jtate@t...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Well, a 2 year-old child certainly has plenty of will with a
            > minimum of
            > > reason.
            > >
            > >
            > > Jeffrey L. Tate
            > >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]
            > On
            > > Behalf Of Renato Cezar
            > > Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 7:39 PM
            > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: [existlist] Reason as will
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Hello All,
            > >
            > > Please, I´m looking for any explanation on how our will can be
            > > understood as prior to our reason, or the origin of our reason.
            It
            > > would be like an epistemological explanation of WHY the will is
            the
            > > foundation of reason, or anyway a prerequisite for reason.
            > >
            > > Thank you very much,
            > >
            > > Renato
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
            > > nothing!
            > >
            > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > _____
            > >
            > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > * Visit your group "existlist
            > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist> " on the web.
            > >
            > >
            > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > > <mailto:existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
            subject=Unsubscribe>
            > >
            > >
            > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
            > >
            > >
            > > _____
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
          • Exist List Moderator
            ... Numerous studies have shown that people reach a conclusion then use reason to support their choices. We do not comprehend the complete neurobiology
            Message 5 of 6 , Jan 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On Dec 26, 2005, at 17:38, Renato Cezar wrote:

              > Please, I´m looking for any explanation on how our will can be
              > understood as prior to our reason, or the origin of our reason. It
              > would be like an epistemological explanation of WHY the will is the
              > foundation of reason, or anyway a prerequisite for reason.

              Numerous studies have shown that people reach a conclusion then use
              "reason" to support their choices. We do not comprehend the complete
              neurobiology involved, but the time from action to conscious reason is
              about 300 ms, meaning there is a gap between the action and the
              understanding of the action. That's why we flinch instinctively when
              something is actually on a screen -- our actions occur much faster than
              the mind can reason them away.

              If you want anything, you can develop logic to support the choice. If
              logic were "pure" and truth universal, philosophy would not have
              developed. No political debates would be necessary, either, since the
              "right" choices should always be logically calculated. Machines could
              do a much better job and making choices than people.

              And yet, we like being in charge. We like using "logic" and "reason" to
              support our biases. Just listen to talk radio any day of the week and
              you will hear two sides, seemingly logical, reach different conclusions
              with similar facts at hand. Funny how that works.


              - C. S. Wyatt
              I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
              that I shall be.
              http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
              http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
            • Bobconkawi@aol.com
              I m not sure where the issue started, but will most certainly can provoke reason. In fact, until we discover a passion for understanding we have no reason to
              Message 6 of 6 , Jan 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm not sure where the issue started, but will most certainly can provoke reason. In fact, until we discover a passion for understanding we have no reason to begin the painful process of reasoning. Didn't Nietzsche saysomething about will provoking thought? Remember Mersault, in The Stranger? Only when he found a passion for living at the point of death did he start thinking about his life. Wasn't the point that "we must live as if we are going to die in the morning and the sun is beginning to rise" to provoke thought?--Bob

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Exist List Moderator <existlist1@...>
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 18:47:15 -0800
                Subject: Re: [existlist] Reason as will


                On Dec 26, 2005, at 17:38, Renato Cezar wrote:

                > Please, I´m looking for any explanation on how our will can be
                > understood as prior to our reason, or the origin of our reason. It
                > would be like an epistemological explanation of WHY the will is the
                > foundation of reason, or anyway a prerequisite for reason.

                Numerous studies have shown that people reach a conclusion then use
                "reason" to support their choices. We do not comprehend the complete
                neurobiology involved, but the time from action to conscious reason is
                about 300 ms, meaning there is a gap between the action and the
                understanding of the action. That's why we flinch instinctively when
                something is actually on a screen -- our actions occur much faster than
                the mind can reason them away.

                If you want anything, you can develop logic to support the choice. If
                logic were "pure" and truth universal, philosophy would not have
                developed. No political debates would be necessary, either, since the
                "right" choices should always be logically calculated. Machines could
                do a much better job and making choices than people.

                And yet, we like being in charge. We like using "logic" and "reason" to
                support our biases. Just listen to talk radio any day of the week and
                you will hear two sides, seemingly logical, reach different conclusions
                with similar facts at hand. Funny how that works.


                - C. S. Wyatt
                I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                that I shall be.
                http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer



                Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                Yahoo! Groups Links






                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.