Reasoning (bridging rationality and irrationality) Part I

Alfred Tarski was a Polish logician he wrote “Logic is justly considered the basis of all other sciences, even if only for the reason that in every argument we employ concepts taken from the field of logic and that ever correct inference proceeds in accordance with its laws”

To an idea rationality can be a judge with a black robe and a counsel’s wig, and we all know we can’t ignore the judge. A mere idea may not matter enough its application needs to be tested trailed and applied to understand the feasibility keeping existing factors upon a rational approach. The basis of this idea may always lead you to distinguishing well from bad reasoning. Logic fills the gap and advocates a judge’s conclusion.

This practice may lead us to see what we are committed to when it comes to accepting what we take a view of as reason instead of accepting beliefs for which we may lack adequate reasons. There is a need to provide adequate reasoning for which we consider various factors supporting rationality and avoid loosely related statements to discover assumptions.

If our brain reasons based on rationality and irrationality, it should be divided on to the following factors to enhance understanding of human behaviour.

Rational: Logic, nature, science, metaphysics

Irrational: Imagination, emotions, belief, arts and culture

These factors may lead to evolve social structures that can answer contradictions and present solutions for the social problems. The reasoning should be presented as rational solutions to social problems leading to anarchy (solely based on opinions and differences).

To understand and apprehend; sure you need a model. This model should be considered common knowledge, rather something that opens doors to them at a Master’s level. Religion gives a perfect imagination to a child that his irrational brain understands and develop as truth at a very early age. Unlike actual logic and reason, this happens only because rationality is never considered equally important by the society and religion makes sure that rationality does not pitch in. If science and religion don’t get along very well, it is because rationality always falls as a victim to irrationality in a society and does not allow science to implement the logics it concludes.

To implement rationality on an early age it should be injected within a society in a way where it would come to people rather people coming to it without a compulsion to stay intact once proven successful or implementable.

Such laws need to be introduced and kept within a society appropriately with a responsibility to be embraced as common knowledge and not as superior divine truth. It should be introduced as a choice to be embraced and accepted as a life form. Irrational reasons that keep you intact and restricted to information may not fall under justice to the idea of knowledge. It may not be justifiable and may hold more probable chances of deteriorating society (if in power).

On top of it if such irrational ideas set themselves as a compulsion. As a factor of society it may get distorted by the lesser optimistic approaches of creativity, imagination, fiction, emotions and will set an irrationality as common knowledge. Leading to a state where society falls as victim.

Philosophically knowledge should trigger a person's intellect to justify his approach surpassing the contradictions. He may only be able to achieve it once he could be able to deconstruct what is derived using all the prerequisite rational elements like logic and nature etc.

to be continued ...