[ High School and Self-Education Board ]
Posted by Tina in Ouray, CO on 22:46 May 10
In Reply to: What is "right"?... posted by Nan in Mass
Yes, yes! We must understand our terms: that's the first act of the mind. If we are trying to communicate or, in this case, carry on any kind of dialectic, it is imperative that we come to terms.
By reasoning rightly I generally mean to reason in accordance with the way things really are, in a manner that is consistent with reality.
***The Necessity of Logic: To avoid fallacious reasoning and to reason rightly. Logic is "undeniable, unavoidable, self-evident, or self explanatory. One cannot 'not' use it." The only question is whether we reason rightly.
Here rightly is used in contrast to fallacious. Right reasoning is the opposite of fallacious reasoning. Fallacious reasoning is reasoning that is flawed. Such reasoning leads to error rather than truth; it is illogical and irrational. Of course, this use of the term assumes that there is absolute truth. It also assumes that the rational structure of the universe and the rational structure of the human mind come from the same source. I think these assumptions are philosophically required in order to explain how we can know anything at all. (See my reasons for studying logic related to obtaining true knowledge.)
***The Nature of Logic: To understand the epistemological nature of language and thinking; to learn to define terms, to make distinctions, to rightly judge, and to validly deduce truth; to encourage systematic, disciplined, orderly, and precise thinking.
Here I used the term rightly in a slightly different sense. A judgment in formal logic is technically either true or false depending on its accordance with reality. So to rightly judge would be to make statements that conform to the way things really are. All three of the things I mentioned here defining terms, rightly judging, and validly deducing truth are part of sound reasoning. There! Sound reasoning could be used as a synonym for right reasoning. Sound reasoning requires both the truth of the premises and the validity of the structure of the argument.
***A Tool of Learning: To understand the logical aspects of language and develop analytical skills foundational to all other disciplines, linking the formal character of reasoning to 'all' our studies.
***True Knowledge: To analyze and justify our beliefs and opinions and acquire true knowledge; to proportion the degree of our beliefs in accord with the grounds we have for their acceptance.
***Our Reasonable Service: To learn to love God, to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, to reason together with Him, to plead our cause before His throne, to prove what is good, and to rightly divide the word of truth.
Here the term rightly is used in an allusion to a Biblical reference (II Timothy 2:15) that is sometimes translated as handling accurately. The analogy being drawn is to a workman who uses a tool in its intended manner. Here, in the text, there is an assumption that there is absolute truth and that that truth is knowable; based on that assumption men are called to diligently work to correctly interpret and apply propositional truth.
My use of right reason closely parallels the Aristotelian conception of truth as that which accords with objective reality. I think this is referred to as the correspondence theory of truth in philosophy.
Right reason might be that which aligns itself with Reason or Truth: Reason with a capital R. The distinction here would be that reasoning is an activity of the human mind whereas Reason is the ultimate standard(s) against which reasoning is determined to be sound or unsound. Again, there is the underlying assumption that there is such a thing as absolute Truth.