On the Theme of Reason(s)
This year’s symposium theme grew out of conversations around a number of other potential topics, all of which seemed to intersect in the concept of Reason (as in the human faculty to reason) and justification or purpose (i.e. reasons). We were intrigued by the way in which Reason, once upheld by Aristotle as an essential component of being human and the cornerstone of human fulfillment, has in more recent times been considered inadequate as a means to fully understand nature. Indeed, even in science where the process of inquiry reflects vestiges of the classical emphasis on Reason, we recognize that nature is inherently stochastic and that future states of the Universe cannot be predicted with certainty even in the presence of infinite information. Thus even if we were to accept the dubious premise that the scientific method is a modern incarnation of the application of Reason to the process of accumulating knowledge, we must simultaneously accept its impotence. In the humanities, the emphasis on Reason long ago receded, and at least since Kant, the Western school of thought has had to grapple with his conclusion that knowledge cannot in general be obtained in a manner independent of experience. Moreover, the raison d’être of many fields long ago ceased to be the discovery of principles, rules, or truths. The odd political scientist would describe her role in academe and society as “seeking to discover what system of government is best,” philosophers no longer try to ascertain “the good,” and literary theory does not claim to offer a path to complete understanding of a poem, an author, a passage, or to somehow discover the best means of constructing a work of prose or verse. A major concept in the humanities is that of a construct, a framework or collection of ideas through which a group of individuals view the world. The emphasis is relativism, and in the absence of universal truth, much of the classical impetus for the use of Reason to gain knowledge has dissipated. Reason, it would seem, is dead.
Yet in the larger world that exists outside of the University, the concept of Reason remains a powerful force, and here it is often found in the same places as — and perhaps conflated with — reasons. It is common to describe a decision process as “reasoning through” or “reasoning out” a particular scenario. One often hears the term “marketplace of ideas,” which indicates the extent to which individual members of society are occupied with constructing their own personal edifice of truths, facts, and principles, and the resulting demand for prepackaged points of view for those feeling overwhelmed. Particularly where elected governments exist, citizens must form opinions on a wide range of issues of relevance to the functioning of the state and its various administrative and bureaucratic units. Of more universal relevance is the necessity to make choices on a regular basis. These range from the mundane (“what should I eat for breakfast?”) to the consequential (“should I pursue a career in medicine?”) to the profound (“do I believe in God?”). Whatever the process through which people actually make such choices, when asked they will often describe it as a deliberate one, and will generally be able to provide reasons why they made a decision or reached a particular conclusion about an issue. A growing body of research in psychology and economics has shown that people’s stated reasons often seem inconsistent with their behavior, and that what people assert to be their clear preferences will often change over relatively short periods of time based on recent experiences. Even when the decision in question is largely free of any moral baggage and the upside and downside are extremely clear, people are observed to behave irrationally. To take but one famous example from behavioral economics, when faced with the choice of a 50 percent chance of winning 125 dollars or 50 dollars for sure, most people will take the sure thing, even though the uncertain bet has a higher expected value.
Of course, this year’s theme may be interpreted in many more ways than encompassed in this brief summary, and this is as it should be, for the symposium should offer a platform for the genesis and exchange of ideas rather than a rigid structure into which one’s ideas must fit. However, we found the tension between the withdrawal of the academic world from an attempt to discover “the truth” through the application of Reason and the extent to which what are perceived as facts and principles by groups of individuals are asserted as reasons for taking an action, making a decision, or seeking a group action (e.g. by a state) to be an interesting starting point. We expect that the USP community will join in this conversation in the coming weeks to further enrich and explore the theme, and that this process will culminate in an exciting symposium this spring.
(Thanks to James Johndrow and Alex Oprea for this elegant summary on our 2014 USP Symposium theme, Reason(s)!)
