25. marraskuuta 2009

School- Ramnivas Ruia Junior College
Address- 2, Chaitanya society, Patharli rd, Dombivli[e], Thane district, Maharashtra, India- 421201
Age – 17 yrs
 

The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of." – Blaise pascal, Pensees, 1670

Reason- the tool to know

Reason is a mental faculty of human beings. It is an integration of all perceptions to a set of axioms that make man’s rationality, which is superficially seen to be his logic. Reason is this logic which acts as principle to perceive things further, justify them and give an account of life. Reason is a factor deep-rooted in thinking which determines choice and directs will.
The word- reason is used in different ways. E.g. ‘the reason I want to go home is that I’m ill’ and ‘ the concept of reason can be defined clearly’ in the prior one reason is one evaluating factor to person’s behaviour and in the latter it is the subject of the sentence which calls in the explanation given. The definition of reason goes with the use in the second sentence considering it to be an abstract concept composed of various elements but which acts like one postulate in human actions. The second way of using reason[ in the second sentence] is its reduction to a single factor which directs behavior.
Is there a difference between Reason and Reasons?

The problem that comes from dissimilar usage of a single word puts a question
[reason]= reason1 + reason 2+ …reason n - is this true i.e is our reasoning power a sum-total or numerous unconnected factors that have been occurring so far in life
 

Let us think conversely about this issue by taking in consideration irrationality.
 

The integrity of the concept of reason comprises of rationality of an individual. Defying reason leads to irrational behavior. Can this defiance of rationality similarly converse our other usage of reason. If X’s reason[ rationale] is a. His actions break the Law Of a. considering that his behavior is determined by at least one factor, the other idea of reason is present. His actions were directed by this ‘reason’ called b. Looking at the situation b is important by presence; b is inevitable. But a cannot be analysed by its presence or absence as X has always regarded to be the right kind of reasoning but doesn’t follow it always. Therefore acceptance of a particular type of reasoning to be logical and infallible to bring together the inputs of knowledge is reason. The other idea of using the reason comes out of the custom of language. Therefore no direct contrast or despair can be observed within both these concepts.
But this is because one of them is a concept defined in a hardcore manner and other is a loosely defined concept which can be replaced by another word on account of its flexible meaning. This is the reason as to why the two elements of Blaise’s statement do not attack each other etymologically. This opposes validity of the reason equation. And what Blaise says disproves it. Taking both these two issues together brings in another question.
 

Can there be overlapping between reason and reasons?
 

The given statement says that heart has reasons; its clear implication is towards the motivation behind actions. The next part says that reason doesn’t recognize them. Putting them in simple words- that which is not recognized by reason is irrational; whatever the heart hints for is unrecognized by reason and therefore the natural conclusion is heart’s behavior is irrational. Here heart’s behavior is emotionally driven behavior. So the set of reasons are governed by emotionality. This statement and the play of words within it gives the following conclusions-
 

Emotionality and rationality can never give same results.
 

Emotionality and rationality are two different principles and both exist.
 

What I get from these obvious meanings of the statements that emotions hold no place in reasoning. Other conclusion is that both the two different principles co-exist. One cannot argue that both cant be right because Blaise nowhere calls the two ideas of reason to be mutually exclusive of each other. He simply sanctions this system of thinking which allows parallel functioning of opposites. This leads us to the most important step in defining and framing the idea of reason.
 

Can emotionality and rationality co-exist and does the issue of their co-existence bring disparity?
The faculty of man’s reason does the job of rationalizing his world; its functions as an explanatory tool and works as an director of his actions. This direction is a mental indication and may not always reflect in material. Therefore the logic that man’s actions are governed by a guiding principle and thus what reflects in them can imply that guiding principle is wrong. Man is not a slave to a mental block called reason. In fact reason allows choice and steers one towards the right one. An individual is always left with a choice to go for the other option of choosing what he doesn’t aim for. This act of irrationality is doesn’t loop back to a parallel reason which is actually the complement of the earlier one and still co-exists. What is left unclear in Blaise’s statement is that the difference between the reasons is in fact opposite of other.
 

What triggers irrational behavior? Everything that doesn’t function according to the rationale. Do emotions occupy a place in rational thinking? In psychology they are experiences of the bodily states triggered by chemicals. Emotions as seen by human beings are expressions of the natural status of an individual. Emotions can be explained to oneself; one can know what they reflect and control them accordingly. Besides their physiological existence is reality of the present and in no way imply their continuation in future and its impact on actions. Thus emotions can be reasoned out. Some emotions are an exaggeration of the possible impact of reality and thus they may trigger irrational behavior. But it is impossible for human beings to retain emotions in their natural state. Emotions do not lie unrecognized and thus they are acted upon. Anything unreasonable about them can be altered by thinking even before they reflect in one’s behavior. Emotions just like perception provide an input to thinking. Reason acts upon them, denies or accepts them to a point which influences actions. The heart’s reasons or our emotionality, valid or invalid, good or bad, strong or weak to make a difference exist in themselves devoid of how they will be processed upon further.
 

And this further sanction of our emotionality by reason is possible. If heart’s reasons aren’t rational according to reason then they are recognized to be irrational and one cannot say that they are left misunderstood. It is not necessary that every human emotion has to put an end to reason. Emotionality and rationality can blend in, in a way where emotionality is allowed to influence reason. One cannot ignore the fact that reason comes before emotions when thinking process is determining the sequence. Rationality and emotionality are mutually exclusive because there is no sense in which they can be compared. This explains their co-existence as well.
 

Conclusion
 

1- The idea of heart having its own reasons, is actually about emotional decisiveness of individuals. Reasons imply only the presence of such emotions and do not assure that to be the complete explanation to actions.
 

2- Reason which means reasoning classifies everything in groups of rational and irrational as long as man is thinking. This naturally doesn’t stop at letting the irrational factors exist. There is always a choice and one who behaves irrationally has opted for that choice.
 

3- This doesn’t bring in the wall between the discussed reasons. The usage of reason in the heart’s context is not a sense of the word different from the other. Its is just etymological liberty.
 

4- Despite the generally observed dissimalrity in implication of reason, we can conclude that emotions occupy a valid place in being a part of our thinking. Once analysed they can be discarded, altered or retained as they are.
 

5- The logic that defines rationality, also means that every element triggering an irrational action defies reason. So the heart’s reasons when recognized to be illogical should no longer be a factor acting upon the actions of a thinking man.