Is reason really the only means of attaining knowledge?

[Typh0n]

I came across this article last night and felt like sharing. It's from a site on Norse mythology and religion, the content is thus directly connected to the topic.

The Mead of Poetry - Norse Mythology for Smart People

The article is divided into three parts, the first decribing a Norse myth about how Odin acquired the mead of poetry. The second examines how our modern society understands knowledge as being something that can only be attained through reason/logic, how this differs from the ancient Germanic understanding of how knowledge was gained. This second part is the part I have quoted here. The third part examines the relationship between subjective and obejctive knowledge and how this is understood in our society, as opposed ot that of the ancient Germanic people. I suggest reading the whole thing. I have quoted the second part of the article below to emphasize this aspect of the topic.

The Origin of Truth and Knowledge

As entertaining as this tale is, it’s also extraordinarily rich in themes that reveal some of the most important differences between the worldview of the pre-Christian Norse and other Germanic peoples on the one hand and the worldview of modern society on the other. The first of these differences we’ll consider has to do with where thoughts come from.

In the modern world, we take it for granted that we arrive at our beliefs through an active process over which we have total control. We call this process “reason.” But any logical proof has to start with an assumption – that is, a statement for which one can’t offer any proof, but rather simply accepts on its own merits. This is so because of the “problem” of “infinite regress:” for every statement one attempts to validate rationally, an additional statement must be added to the chain to support that first statement, a process which can only continue infinitely if the process isn’t stopped somewhere. When and why do we stop this process, then? When can we know when we’ve hit upon an idea that’s so sound that it would be superfluous to question it?

René Descartes, the seventeenth-century French philosopher who was one of the foremost prophets of the modern, rationalistic worldview, held that some truths are simply self-evident and cannot be called into question. Tellingly, the principal notion that Descartes pointed to as a self-evident truth from which other truths could be deduced was, “I think, therefore I am.”

But no truth is self-evident. If there were such a thing as a self-evident truth, everyone, everywhere, would already believe in it, and argumentation would be unnecessary.

“I think, therefore I am” rests on especially shifty ground in this regard. “I think” – how many assumptions are embedded within these two little words! For one thing, “I think” presupposes “I am,” not the other way around; in order for me to have agency in the thinking process, I must first, of course, exist. Even more importantly for our purposes here, “I think” presupposes that my thoughts come from myself and not from anyone or anywhere else. History is brimming with people who have held diametrically opposed views on the ultimate origins of thought. Take, for example, the words of the twentieth-century German philosopher Martin Heidegger, who wrote, “We never come to thoughts. They come to us.”[9]

Evidently, Descartes’s “self-evident truth” is anything but.

In my opinion, Heidegger overstates his case. Some parts of the thought process we can rightly ascribe to ourselves. But his larger point, that there are parts of the thought process over which we don’t have control, mirrors the indigenous Germanic perspective on thought very nicely.

As the tale of Odin’s theft of the Mead of Poetry shows, the pre-Christian Germanic peoples held that the kinds of visionary insights that can make a person into a true poet or scholar – the kinds of insights that can form the basis of a logical proof – come from Odin.

The fact that this gift is symbolized by mead is far from random. One of the central rituals of the pre-Christian religion of the Germanic peoples was the sumbl (Old Norse) or symbel (Old English), which was centered around the drinking of alcohol to induce a state of ecstasy. It was held that one can more readily perceive truth in this inspired state, when one finds it hard to not be utterly honest with oneself and others. In this ritual context, the drinker is closer to the gods and to the sacred realities that undergird the profane reality of everyday life than when one’s inner faculties are bound to the kind of cold, dispassionate mindsets that we in the modern world prize.[10]

Our modern preference for detached analysis is no accident, and has a traceable history of its own. Prior to roughly the fourth century BCE, the view that truth came in rare flashes of ecstatic insight (what we today might call “aha! moments”) was the norm, at least amongst the European peoples of the period, and likely across much of the rest of the world as well. This esteem for the rare and special came under heavy criticism among the Greeks, however, who linked these preferences to a hierarchical social structure that many wanted to replace with something more egalitarian and democratic. Because of this preference for the common and mundane over the elite, the Greeks – including extremely influential philosophers such as Aristotle – began to turn away from inspired thought, seeking to replace it entirely (or at least largely) with the kind of detached analysis that most people today hold to be the sole legitimate means of uncovering truth. The Greeks’ reasons for doing so weren’t really rational, but rather human.[11]

To be sure, the ancient Germanic peoples no doubt held that a more sober, analytical mode of thought had its place as well. But the thoughts that they arrived at through such means were secondary and profane, and derived from the thoughts that were given to them during fleeting moments of ecstatic insight, in much the same way as the contents of any logical proof are derived from an initial assumption that cannot itself be logically supported.

In light of the failure of the rationalistic worldview to account for the origins of the life-determining assumptions that form the basis of any and all thought, might it not be wise to concede that the heathen Germanic people were on to something?

I'm personally a big believer in reason and logic, but perhaps it isn't everything. If the Greeks sought to replace the "inspired" mode of acquiring knowledge for the fact it wasn't fosetring equality and democracy, what are the implications of saying that one accepts the "ecstatic" or "inspired" state of consciousness as ameans of acquiring knowledge? Indeed, this seems so alien to us, as rational postmodern westerners, we cannot imagine what its consequences on society would be too well.

Thoughts?

 

[Coriolis]

At first glance (and even before reading this), my assessment is that reason is necessary for attaining knowledge, but not always sufficient.

 

[LightSun]

At first glance (and even before reading this), my assessment is that reason is necessary for attaining knowledge, but not always sufficient.

"Our civilization is still in a middle stage, scarcely beast; in that it is no longer guided by instinct; scarcely human, in that it is not wholly guided by reason." Theodore Dreiser

"Rarely do you find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think." Martin Luther King Jr.

Reason should be the primary means of gaining facts. Intuitive wisdom comes into play with both inter-personal and intra-personal intelligence a la Howard Gardner's 'Multiple Intelligences.' In the intuitive realm we gain knowledge of self and others as well the world around us by our interactions with one another. That is the reason to keep a level head and dialogue with your stated position and disagree agreeably if necessary.

 

[Polaris]

Knowledge is accurate belief, and it is, of course, possible to believe something without having reasoned it through, and doing so does not necessarily render the belief false. In fact, people often believe false things precisely because they've reasoned them through.

 

[Lark]

I'm personally a big believer in reason and logic, but perhaps it isn't everything. If the Greeks sought to replace the "inspired" mode of acquiring knowledge for the fact it wasn't fosetring equality and democracy, what are the implications of saying that one accepts the "ecstatic" or "inspired" state of consciousness as ameans of acquiring knowledge? Indeed, this seems so alien to us, as rational postmodern westerners, we cannot imagine what its consequences on society would be too well.

Thoughts?

I dont believe that reason and postmodernism have anything what so ever to do with one another.

Postmodernism is born of a crisis, a complete and utter loss of nerve, particularly among the left wing intelligentsia, about their own beliefs, convictions, ideas and all that has been evidenced by the attitude of the hard sciences towards the social sciences and other "soft" sciences and their able and easy sending up of many of the so called "post-modern" nonsense.

 

[Typh0n]

I dont believe that reason and postmodernism have anything what so ever to do with one another.

Postmodernism is born of a crisis, a complete and utter loss of nerve, particularly among the left wing intelligentsia, about their own beliefs, convictions, ideas and all that has been evidenced by the attitude of the hard sciences towards the social sciences and other "soft" sciences and their able and easy sending up of many of the so called "post-modern" nonsense.

I think you're right, I was just using the term loosely, I could have said "modern" or "contemporary".

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

There are certainly steps in problem solving or attaining knowledge that don't use direct reasoning. For an example, the incubation stage in the five stages of creativity is thought to take place in the sub-conscious. The incubation stage is when, after one has amassed information on the problem at hand, one stops thinking about the problem, leaving it to simmer in the sub-conscious until the "ah-ha!" moment is reached. Reasoning is used in the other stages, however. For an example, it's used in preparation to understand the problem and gather information, and it's used in the verification stage to make sure your insight or solution isn't full of quack.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

[... snipped]
I'm personally a big believer in reason and logic, but perhaps it isn't everything. If the Greeks sought to replace the "inspired" mode of acquiring knowledge for the fact it wasn't fosetring equality and democracy, what are the implications of saying that one accepts the "ecstatic" or "inspired" state of consciousness as ameans of acquiring knowledge? Indeed, this seems so alien to us, as rational postmodern westerners, we cannot imagine what its consequences on society would be too well.

Thoughts?

Seems like the OP is contrasting abstraction/conceptualization (ecstatic insights) vs. reason/logic. This topic is kind of philosophy-related (it relates to epistemology), and I'm no philosopher. But here's how I understand the two ideas to be related.

*********************
First off, animals (non-humans) live in the perceptual realm. They perceive something in the world, they interact directly with it, and they move on.

By contrast, man lives in the conceptual realm; he has the ability to abstract. He perceives something in the world, he abstracts features and characteristics based on what he sees, and he uses intuitive leaps to derive concepts that both are and aren't part of the thing he is perceiving. For example, he sees that sticks and twigs on the ground are different lengths, so he comes up with the idea of measurements and lengths (inches, feet, yards, etc.) to organize and categorize the different lengths of sticks and twigs. (Or he might categorize the sticks by color, by how flexible they are, or any number of other characteristics, depending on his needs.)

This faculty of abstraction is part of man's tool-making heritage: Abstraction and conceptualizing allows humans to see additional potential in things above and beyond their mere perceptual characteristics. Or to put it in other words: Abstraction/conceptualization = having intuitive/ecstatic flashes of insight as described in the OP. It's just a mechanical function of how our brain works. Put together enough neurons and build a complex enough brain, and you get the innate ability to abstract and conceptualize (or "have flashes of insight" as described in the OP). Animals are below the abstracting/conceptualization threshold in terms of brain development, while humans are above that threshold.

Finally, logic and reason are the means by which we humans check and verify our abstractions and conceptualizations. Abstractions and conceptualizations can be false just as easily as true (earth at the center of the universe, gods and demons, astrology, psychics and fortunetellers, etc.). So just as in the development of the ruler (itself an abstraction) which is used to measure concrete things in the world like twigs and sticks, we have developed logic and reason (themselves an abstraction) to measure and weigh our intuitive abstractions.

For example, Logic measures the truth of abstractions by requiring a recognition of context and of hierarchy (among other things). Take the Socrates syllogism: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." The premises are directly observable in reality, and the conclusion is induced in a way that doesn't contradict the premises. The syllogism is one example of a Logic-based "ruler" for measuring the truth of abstracted insights. Reason/logic helps us determine the truth of our abstractions or "flashes of insight."

To sum up: One doesn't need to contrast abstraction/conceptualization vs. reason/logic any more than one would contrast abstraction/conceptualization vs. rulers and tape measures. Abstractions (flashes of insight) are simply the way the brain functions once it hits a certain level of development and complexity, whereas reason and logic are tools that we have developed (like the ruler) for weighing and measuring things in order to systematize and organize.

So by all means, have your flashes of ecstatic insight. Hell, you can even use alcohol and drugs (or religious self-deprivation and self-flagellation) to make your insights that much wilder. But once you've generated your ecstatic insights, then you still need to take those insights over to your logic/reason faculty to weigh and measure them to determine their real worth and decide where they fit in the larger world of thought and science.

It's kind of like emotion vs. logic/reason. Those things are really not in opposition; they're just different functions of the brain. Ideally, you want to use them both. And ideally they can be used in tandem to double-check each other's conclusions.* Same with abstraction/conceptualization vs. reason/logic.

* I described that process of using emotion & reason in tandem in a different post: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/general-psychology/89166-emotion-regulation-2.html#post2814117

***************

To finish up: Like I said, I'm no philosopher. This post is pretty much the extent of my knowledge on the subject. So if anyone with some real philosophy background comes along and challenges me on any of this and hits me with a wall of text with philosophical references, I'll just throw up my hands in horror and walk away. I'm just passing along the little bit I've retained across the years on the subject, as I remember it.

 

[Tellenbach]

Some knowledge is instinctual. Spiders know how to build webs and birds know how to build nests. There is also evidence that non-instinctual knowledge can be passed through the genes.

Rat Learning and Morphic Resonance

To summarize: an increased rate of learning in successive generations of both trained and untrained lines would support the hypothesis of formative causation; an increase only in trained lines, the Lamarckian theory; and an increase in neither, the orthodox theory.

Tests of this type have in fact already been performed. The results support the hypothesis of formative causation.

Basically, if one generation of mice runs through a maze, successive generations will go through the maze faster and faster, with fewer mistakes.

This experiment was continued for 32 generations and took 15 years to complete. In accordance with the Lamarckian theory, there was a marked tendency for rats in successive generations to learn more quickly. This is indicated by the average number of errors made by rats in the first eight generations, which was over 56, compared with 41, 29 and 20 in the second, third and fourth groups of eight generations, respectively.

 

[Tomb1]

First off, animals (non-humans) live in the perceptual realm. They perceive something in the world, they interact directly with it, and they move on.

I guess that depends on how you define perceive.

By contrast, man lives in the conceptual realm; he has the ability to abstract. He perceives something in the world, he abstracts features and characteristics based on what he sees, and he uses intuitive leaps to derive concepts that both are and aren't part of the thing he is perceiving. For example, he sees that sticks and twigs on the ground are different lengths, so he comes up with the idea of measurements and lengths (inches, feet, yards, etc.) to organize and categorize the different lengths of sticks and twigs. (Or he might categorize the sticks by color, by how flexible they are, or any number of other characteristics, depending on his needs.)

But man is a subject perceiving this conceptual process. Thus, he lives in the perceptual realm.

For example, Logic measures the truth of abstractions by requiring a recognition of context and of hierarchy (among other things). Take the Socrates syllogism: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." The premises are directly observable in reality, and the conclusion is induced in a way that doesn't contradict the premises. The syllogism is one example of a Logic-based "ruler" for measuring the truth of abstracted insights. Reason/logic helps us determine the truth of our abstractions or "flashes of insight."

Oh I don't agree with that. Critical thought is not the end all be all of determining truth....I've made many gut decisions that turned out right. Flashes of insight same. In some cases, critical thought would have probably said not to go that route and critical thought would have been wrong....the route just comes with more risk. in most cases facts point in different directions, so perfectly evidence-based decisions are pipe-dreams. In circumstances of snap decision, having an intelligent gut is best.

Finally, logic and reason are the means by which we humans check and verify our abstractions and conceptualizations. Abstractions and conceptualizations can be false just as easily as true (earth at the center of the universe, gods and demons, astrology, psychics and fortunetellers, etc.). So just as in the development of the ruler (itself an abstraction) which is used to measure concrete things in the world like twigs and sticks, we have developed logic and reason (themselves an abstraction) to measure and weigh our intuitive abstractions.

I don't agree with your grouping of logic with reason since reasoning can be logically fallacious.

So by all means, have your flashes of ecstatic insight. Hell, you can even use alcohol and drugs (or religious self-deprivation and self-flagellation) to make your insights that much wilder. But once you've generated your ecstatic insights, then you still need to take those insights over to your logic/reason faculty to weigh and measure them to determine their real worth and decide where they fit in the larger world of thought and science.

Such insights don'ts have to be wild or ecstatic...some flashes of insight can be built upon sound unconscious reasoning ime. a flash of insight can range from a complex deduction or an immediate awareness for the other side's next move....I've chosen "d", let's say. D turns out to be right. Somebody asks me how I knew that. And upon consideration, it'll occur to me that "I knew d because of a, b, c" but at the time that I had concluded "d" I wasn't first working through the premises of a, b, and c...

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I guess that depends on how you define perceive.


But man is a subject perceiving this conceptual process. Thus, he lives in the perceptual realm.


Oh I don't agree with that. Critical thought is not the end all be all of determining truth....I've made many gut decisions that turned out right. Flashes of insight same. In some cases, critical thought would have probably said not to go that route and critical thought would have been wrong....the route just comes with more risk. in most cases facts point in different directions, so perfectly evidence-based decisions are pipe-dreams. In circumstances of snap decision, having an intelligent gut is best.


I don't agree with your grouping of logic with reason since reasoning can be logically fallacious.


Such insights don'ts have to be wild or ecstatic...some flashes of insight can be built upon sound unconscious reasoning ime. a flash of insight can range from a complex deduction or an immediate awareness for the other side's next move....I've chosen "d", let's say. D turns out to be right. Somebody asks me how I knew that. And upon consideration, it'll occur to me that "I knew d because of a, b, c" but at the time that I had concluded "d" I wasn't first working through the premises of a, b, and c...

I agree with many of the points that you're raising here. In my earlier post, I was responding in the context of the OP which more or less portrayed the brain functions as a dichotomy: reason/logic vs. inspiration/insight. That is, the OP addressed the issue as a dichotomy, so I responded in the same manner as a point of departure. But by the end of my own post, I went on to talk about how in fact we *really* should be using these two types of thinking together, in tandem. I said:

It's kind of like emotion vs. logic/reason. Those things are really not in opposition; they're just different functions of the brain. Ideally, you want to use them both. And ideally they can be used in tandem to double-check each other's conclusions.* Same with abstraction/conceptualization vs. reason/logic.

* I described that process of using emotion & reason in tandem in a different post: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/general-psychology/89166-emotion-regulation-2.html#post2814117

So in terms of this latter context (the need to use these functions in tandem), I agree with most of the points you raised in your response.

To reiterate, my final and overall position is as follows: These various mental functions are just different operations within the brain, and all the brain's various functions should be utilized and given weight as appropriate. Again, see that link at the end of my post where I talked about how to use emotion & reason in tandem: That would be my template for how to mix and match these functions and use them together.

 

[Cellmold]

Very often the end point of rationality is to understand the limitations of it.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Very often the end point of rationality is to understand the limitations of it.

I agree. But "understanding its limitations" should also be the end point of emotion. And of inspiration. All of these things (rationality, emotion, inspiration) are important, but none of them is the sole picture. They need to be layered on top of each other and used to double-check each other.

Anyway, good post. Reminds me of a Dirty Harry quote: "A man's gotta know his limitations."

Okay, I'll stop preaching now.

 

[Amargith]

Odin knew his shit. He went literally above and beyond to acquire knowledge - rational or irrational.

There is a reason he became a pupil of Freyja to learn the craft of Seidr - an ancient magic reserved for women - and even for them, it was considered shady - making any man who attempted a laughing stock within Viking society, open to having his manhood challenged, a severe insult and threat to your position in society, back then. Seidr is the art of magic, of talking to dark spirits - of crossing over. Of shamanic powers and riding the hedge.

Odin didn't care - it was Knowledge, and he craved it. The cost of not acquiring it was too great, and he didn't let his ego, manhood or his public image get in the way of obtaining it. No matter its notoriety or irrationality.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Knowledge is cheap and empty. The Internet is full of knowledge.

Reason often is too, as it is too often based upon faulty structures that do not hold up to experience and life.

Wisdom is the only thing worth aiming for. Acquiring wisdom requires the understanding the limits of knowledge and reason. It is understanding there is so much one doesn't know or understand. It is about rejecting pride in one's knowledge or reason and embracing humility.

And it is accepting that some things, that seem odd or impossible or irrational, are in fact right and true, just, inexplicable to one's current level of knowledge and reason.

Wisdom has a great cost and most today refuse to even think about paying the price.

 

[Cellmold]

I agree. But "understanding its limitations" should also be the end point of emotion. And of inspiration. All of these things (rationality, emotion, inspiration) are important, but none of them is the sole picture. They need to be layered on top of each other and used to double-check each other.

Anyway, good post. Reminds me of a Dirty Harry quote: "A man's gotta know his limitations."

Okay, I'll stop preaching now.

Preach away, I don't mind.

Besides I also agree, though I tend not to see emotion/reason as a dichotomy. Mainly because without emotion we cannot act and without reason we cannot think. That and the reality of those being part of an overall rather than divided, except where we divide them in our inner imagery and act out our division.

 

[Typh0n]

Knowledge is cheap and empty. The Internet is full of knowledge.

Reason often is too, as it is too often based upon faulty structures that do not hold up to experience and life.

Wisdom is the only thing worth aiming for. Acquiring wisdom requires the understanding the limits of knowledge and reason. It is understanding there is so much one doesn't know or understand. It is about rejecting pride in one's knowledge or reason and embracing humility.

And it is accepting that some things, that seem odd or impossible or irrational, are in fact right and true, just, inexplicable to one's current level of knowledge and reason.

Wisdom has a great cost and most today refuse to even think about paying the price.

I think you're talking semantics, what you call "knowledge" to me is simply "information". The internet is full of information, not knowledge.

Reason is often isolated from sensory experience because sensory experience can be wrong too. Appearances are deceptive.

Reason isn't absolute and it certainly has it's limits (noone has said otherwise).

I would say Wisdom comes from a mix of several things, including reason, knowledge, life experience, etc. Wisdom also takes time to acquire, which is what discourages many people. If it can't be had with the click of a button....