Of mental reasoning

“Accurate and just reasoning is the only catholic[i] remedy, fitted for all persons and all dispositions; and is alone able to subvert that abstruse philosophy and metaphysical jargon, which, being mixed up with popular superstition, renders it[ii] in a manner impenetrable to careless reasoners, and gives it the air of science and wisdom.”[iii]

How does one correctly assess reasoning as “accurate and just” and by what criteria is it validated? The aforementioned quotation nullifies its conclusion through an assumed premise of truth where none has been presented. At the same time, contextual conclusions within section one of this treatise suggest that Hume’s paradigm attributes credibility to a philosophy established through numerous lifetimes of thorough investigations and arduous ‘mental pains.’ It should be acknowledged, however, that these endeavors alone do not necessarily result in authenticated reason since people often expend an enormous deal of effort exploring notions dictated by the erroneous caprice of an era and of unfounded biases issued by ignorance. Regarding the allegedly irreplaceable role of research, the scholar states,

“…however unsuccessful former attempts may have proved, there is still room to hope, that the industry, good fortune, or improved sagacity of succeeding generations may reach discoveries unknown to former ages.”[iv]

Most would be obliged to agree because the sentiment underpinning this statement is optimistically hopeful. Nonetheless, it is not within the power of humankind to thus affect folly as to make it wisdom, neither will any length of time, nor supposed verisimilitudes cause a lie to become truth. Can it be logical to presume that the intensity or duration of dedication to a line of reasoning has any determinant in its accuracy or fallibility? By the same antithetical token, one might believe that staring intently at an eastern horizon for a prolonged period of time will eventually cause the sun to rise. However, the outcome hardly substantiates the veracity of the supposition.

Ultimately, the point cannot be avoided, nor should it be relegated to the analogs of antiquated thought: reason is dependent upon a cause. The exigencies of human reasoning are far too great if disconnected from their “perfect origins;”[v] for one must know everything to know anything with absolute certainty. Thus, the need for a solid foundation upon which to build becomes equally paramount as the conditional capacity man has for reasoning.

Granted, if the former authority has been applied, then the later pretenses merely present a subterfuge, masking and distorting the potential impact of understanding. In effect, such esoteric rhetoric wrapped in adherence to baseless traditions may inadvertently rescind the actual power of a sound mind, for when did accurate reasoning ever require a semblance of wisdom. These snares are implied to all for whom “The Word” is but an inheritance and to those whose practice of reasoning remains stagnant.      All things considered, “Wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”[vi]

 

---

[i] Universal

[ii] Accurate and just reasoning

[iii] Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Sect 1, 7

[iv] Ibid.

[v] John 1:1-4 The very first word, ipso facto, is preeminently authoritative.

[vi] Luke 7:35