REASON

In one of his most famous utterances the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) supposedly said, "Man is a rational animal (zoon logon exon)." Actually, Aristotle did not say this.

As far as I have been able to find out, this dictum was first announced by Chrysippus, a later Stoic philosopher.

But whoever said it, this may nevertheless be the most misunderstood proposition in philosophy.

# # #

By some, the statement "Man is a rational animal" has been taken as a definition. To these people, it means that the outstanding defining characteristic (or "essence," to use a philosophic term) of humanity is its rationality. (The further implication is that Aristotle believed that humanity is a mentally balanced species, whose outstanding characteristic is its use of reason in (its) life.)

But, as far as I know, neither Aristotle nor Chrysippus meant this.

Aristotle did advocate the use of reason. In fact, in his Nicomachean Ethics, he advocates a life of reason.

What Aristotle seems to have meant in his Nicomachean Ethics was that the human species has an ability to reason, a capacity for reasoning. Aristotle did not mean (what is manifestly absurd) that human beings always act rationally and think rationally. Neither did he mean -- as we might casually say -- that human beings are always or usually rational.

He did not even mean to imply that humans always have the ability in all circumstances to act rationally. What did Aristotle really mean? Aristotle simply meant that humanity has some capacity to do reasoning.

# # #

The Russian-American novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982) claimed to be indebted to Aristotle. Specifically, she believed in the discoveries that Aristotle had made about formal logic in his Organon (that is, his body of six or so treatises which outline and explain formal logic). But she either misunderstood or did not follow her mentor in his understanding of human psychology.

No. Rand believed much more strongly than Aristotle in humanity's capacity to reason. Not only that: Rand seems to have held that human beings have a capacity to use reason every instant of their waking lives. But, Rand held, often human beings choose not to think. This, she believed, is the fundamental evil act. To choose not to think (thinking, for her, seems to be the act of focusing the mind on a problem) is the source of all evil.

Refusing to think is the source of all evil, thought Rand, because it is a repudiation of humanity's basic means of survival. Human beings have to think, Rand thought, in order to supply themselves with the means of survival, values. (A value is that which one seeks to gain and/or to keep.)

For example, human beings need water, shelter, nourishing food, self-esteem, and many other values. Only reasoning can help them obtain these necessary things.

For Rand, the source of all good, therefore, is the basic choice to think. Rand therefore advocated thinking (or Reason, as she tended to call it). She therefore (misleadingly, if one knows the history of philosophy) proudly called herself a Rationalist. (By "thinking," Rand meant formal conscious thinking, careful considerations and identifications, the use of formal logic, and careful checking of one's premises and conclusions by Aristotle's laws of reasoning.)

Rand believed that the most unfortunate action human beings ever perform is to allow their emotions to flourish over their reason; they allow unfounded desires (she called such desires "whims") to get out of hand and override and suppress reason. While she allowed that emotions are "automatic summaries of value judgments," she nonetheless seems to have believed human beings have, at least potentially, complete power to override these automatic judgments: they have (in some way or sense) complete conscious control over their minds. Therefore, rationally-striving human beings must often override/suppress/repress their emotions in favor of thinking (reason). For Rand, there is no excuse for allowing whims to dominate conscious reason. Human beings need not allow their emotions to dominate their thought. They need not become emotional or irrational.

Rand believed that in some way emotions are good, or can be -- provided that they do not interfere with (conscious) reason. It is as if, having worked hard to succeed by using one's reason, one might reasonably enjoy a bit of an emotional vacation from reason. One might enjoy classical music, for instance, or romantic love emotionally from time to time. One might feel the emotion of joy in contemplating one's past or present life, or one's hopes. But "emotions are not tools of cognition," she always insisted. Human beings should strive to be "conscious," "rational," "integrated." Like a stern mother, Rand counselled her followers to "use Reason," to "think," to "focus." And her favorite term of deprecation and opprobrium for a hated opponent or act was "irrational."

Reading Rand's life in, for example, the biography of her by Barbara Branden, seems to show that Rand did not and could not practise these beliefs with complete success. She, the 20th century's strongest advocate of Reason, was often flagrantly emotional and irrational. This was particularly evident when she contemplated the world scene, which depressed her; Rand saw it as an endless pageant of irrationality and evil. It was evident also in her dealings with Nathaniel Branden (1930-     ), her "intellectual heir," at the end of their sexual affair. And it was evident in her continually emotional hostilities and overdone projections onto others of her own emotional states.

Rand continually tried to practise her unworkable psychological doctrines. Her life seems to show her many failures "to be (completely) rational" and logical, her many failures "to integrate her values;" also, her honest and persistent attempts to do so. She continually hectored her students and followers to "focus" and to "think." She attempted to be entirely consistent in her thinking and her life. This had fascinating but occasionally unfortunate or even catastrophic results.

Her one-time "intellectual heir," Nathaniel Branden the California self-esteem psychologist, while more sympathetic to the emotions and to intuition than Rand, continues trying to teach his students and readers to live more consciously in their daily lives.

I think this is a little wrong-headed.

First, I note that there are several kinds of thinking/reasoning.

One kind is identification. We look at something, and realize (consciously or unconsciously) what it is. This is often automatic.

Another kind is projective. We look at something, and realize what it can be used for.

Another kind is emotional. We look at something, and realize how we feel about it.

Another kind is associative or connotative. We look at something, and realize (dimly) what things are like it, and perhaps how we feel about that class.

Many of our reasonings are automatic and intuitive. We just do them, without consciously deciding to do them. They seem to need no element of will or choice. They do not seem to need to be focused.

Others seem to be counter-intuitive. Divided, uncertain what to do, we seek consciously to reason about our problems.

My favorite story about conscious reasoning is the story about the English philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820 -1903).

It seems Spencer was trying to decide whether to stya in England or emigrate to New Zealand. He made a list of good reasons why he should emigrate to New Zealand. It was a long list. Then he made a list of good reasons why he should stay in England.

It turned out to be a short list.

So Spencer chose to stay in England.

I believe that Spencer remained in England for intuitive reasons, not "rational" ones. And so do most of us. Whether we realize it or not, we operate intuitively; this law includes Ayn Rand as well. I am certain she often proceeded intuitively, but did not have sufficient conscious awareness to realize that she was doing so. Instead, she ascribed her decisions to "Reason."

Avoid this fate! O readers, accept, please, that you are an animal that evolution has programmed to succeed in a multitute of circumstances. Accept that your intuitions may often be right. Accept that, in a difficult, confusing situation, your unconscious may have already reached a conclusion too difficult for the limited abilities of the conscious levels of your mind. And accept, please -- don't be like Ayn Rand -- that you are more, far more, than your mere conscious mind.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than the conscious mind understands. Man is, among other things, a programmed animal.

[To Be Continued and Revised]

Home | About Grant | What's New | Links | Coming Soon | Send E-Mail

Last modified: 8:15 PM 9/18/2002