Is there a solid reason to believe in ‘reasoning‘?
Sure, it does help us understand the world around us, but from the very same logical channels, there are other understandings that eventually commingle to reveal a very distasteful, perplexing concoction. To agree with this, you need to agree with the fact that every discipline we demarcate today to suit today’s world’s context, has been fashioned from the annals of philosophy. The philosophy of politics, the philosophy of science, the philosophy behind reasoning and so forth; you get the point, right?
So, my question really is, why have we as humans opted for reasoning to understand the world and our lives? And just to clear any ambiguities, reasoning entails a lot more than just plain, old words of argument. Reasoning means evaluation, observation, experimentation and basically all of that you proclaim to be ‘the scientific method’.
There is an answer to the original question, and that answer, at least as I understand it, is the human instinct for ‘survival‘.
Understanding what goes around us is the first step in the conscious/subconscious strategy that perpetuates human existence. So we devised a clever way of achieving tasks in order to increase the narrow statistical probability of survival.
The funny thing is, decisions taken in today’s world when there’s a state of temporary chaos, where survival is threatened (cannibalism on a stranded sea boat), are considered to be ‘one-off’ or legitimate but these decisions carry a very strict judgement behind their backs; judgement that acknowledges the fact that such decisions are liable to punishment in the ‘normal‘ world.
I find this pretty ironic. Do you?
But of course, this explanation would almost be exclusively rejected because let’s admit it, human race has achieved harmony today and is relatively successful. But does this fit with the very famous biological theory floated by Charles Darwin, which is almost completely accepted as a fact by the scientific community, called ‘evolution‘? Is it the biological evolution that somehow dispersed the notion of chaos and entrenched a path that lead to consensus? Through reasoning, it has hard to reason in favour of this.
But then again, there is a ‘scientific method’, drawn from a state of absolute chaos and from an utter frenzy for survival. This scientific methods supports Darwinism, and so does all of what has been through its lens. Hard to argue over the facts of life, but its strange how all of this is derived from a very shaky foundation of ‘reasoning’; reasoning that was borne through a period where needs and survival, possibly outweighed everything (today, we don’t consider such things as legal).
While it would be foolish to shoot down the obvious observations and consequential data derived from the scientific method, it is however important to note that on the same level, would it be also foolish to believe in everything that is born from reasoning?
Now that is the real question.
Sadly, there is no objective answer to this because objectivity never truly exists. Funny how all of this actually leaves a space that religion could occupy.
Good luck cracking the nut.