6

By "optimism in reason" I mean, the belief that reason could - in theory, if taken to its logical extreme - lead to the "best" outcomes. I don't know if "optimism in reason" is the best name for this belief. That's part of what I'm asking. By "reason," I mean examining evidence and arguments in a way that normally tends to lead towards the truth; I do not mean to contrast reason with empiricism, for example, as the "rationalists" did. Empirical investigation would be included in this notion of reason.

"Optimism in reason" encompasses ideas such as:

  • If reasonable people start with the same facts, and discuss and analyze their reasoning sufficiently, they will be able to resolve any and all disagreements by tracing them back to their root causes. In the end they will come to the same conclusions, even if this takes a hundred years.
  • This holds even for moral propositions. Sufficiently wise people will act morally; all evil is in the end a form of ignorance. If someone clearly understood and meditated on all the consequences of an evil act, they would get a bad feeling about it and not want to do it. If they did still want to do it, then it wasn't an evil act.
  • There is an ideal form of "reason" that we try to approximate, and can approximate increasingly well if we try sincerely for long enough. This ideal form of reason isn't purely deductive, it also involves weighing of evidence and probabilities.
  • There are no "personal truths." Every truth is something that could be generally accepted, if the base facts were known and discussed sufficiently.
  • Any belief not founded in reason, such as a belief coming from blind faith, tradition, or acceptance of authority, is a problem. Such beliefs should be either justified by reason or discarded.
  • Any social structure that interferes with rational discussion, such as censorship, ideological hierarchy, taking disagreements personally, or refusing to hear contrary views, is a problem that needs to be fixed.
  • People who disagree should calmly, honestly, and rationally talk things out, without trying to hide any of their reasons. If all parties can agree to this, the outcome will be better and more just. It will become clear who is in the right (if any).
  • Honesty is supremely important because lies interfere with reason (garbage in, garbage out). Liars should be censured.
  • Authorities should be asked to thoroughly justify what they claim to be true, and should do so.
  • Those who were wrong should admit it.
  • It is better to know the truth and deal with it and accept it, than to remain in ignorance, even if the truth is painful.

Has this type of attitude been named and discussed as a bundle of views? Or must it be broken apart into its separate components?

Improve this question
4
  • Hmm, you aren't including "what to do when people don't follow these sets of guidelines"? I believe the definitive text for that approach is "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm".
    – JonathanZ
    Commented Oct 30 at 2:46
  • The thought that all beliefs should be justified in reason is itself unreasonable, unless you allow infinite regress. Perhaps it ought to be amended to "any belief not founded in reason or in innate, common human knowledge..." or something similar.
    – Dark Malthorp
    Commented Oct 30 at 3:09
  • 1
    The closest I can suggest is Kant's essay "What is Enlightenment?" since it has many of the features you list. Though, there's a caveat: Kant divides the public and private spheres, the list you have would be ideal for the public domain according to Kant.
    – Hokon
    Commented Oct 30 at 3:56
  • One possible criticism is that this sounds like a 'WEIRD' perspective, and so, one not even conceived of by the rest of the world. But, otherwise, it is what I think.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Oct 30 at 16:25

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4

You ask:

Has "optimism in reason" been explicitly discussed as a philosophical position?

Yes. Optimism in reason is a central theme of both humanism and the Enlightenment. On the one hand, according WP, "humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the individual and social potential, and agency of human beings, whom it considers the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry". On the other hand, according to WP:

The Age of Enlightenment (also the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment) was an intellectual and philosophical movement that occurred in Europe in the 17th and the 18th centuries. The Enlightenment featured a range of social ideas centered on the value of knowledge learned by way of rationalism and of empiricism and political ideals such as natural law, liberty, and progress, toleration and fraternity, constitutional government, and the formal separation of church and state.

Of course, this is just an extension of the idea of philosophy according to a number of Ancient Greeks. Socrates was for his gadfly method of dialectical questioning and encouraged critical thinking and reasoned dialogue to uncover truth and resolve conflicts. Plato wrote about the role of reason in achieving justice and harmony in society. Aristotle emphasized rationality as a key component of ethical behavior and political governance, and believed in finding a “golden mean” or compromise between extremes. (And as perhaps the original empiricist, appealed to the natural world to settle debates in an objective fashion.)

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    Once again an exact answer. Reaches it's pinnacle with the positivism philosopher Comte quite literally making churches
    – Rushi
    Commented Oct 30 at 7:04
3

Your blueprint for a better world joins with similar utopies under the heading

Our world would be much better if all follow the doctrine of Jesus Christ or the historical Buddha or the communist ideology or …

  1. Unfortunately such doctrines completely ignore the strenght of the deep rooted human drives and strategies, which are due to millions of years of biological evolution. Often we do not even know which obstacles from evolution hinder us to follow good intentions.

  2. It is always helpful to reflect on ideals.

    But one also needs some expertise from sociology concerning the mechanisms in human societies. In addition to some knowledge about the formative power of biological evolution.

Improve this answer
8
  • 1
    What I think you're hinting at - though you don't actually say it - is that humans are genetically inclined to be lying authoritarian bastards to each other. True, but cultural norms and doctrine can influence that.
    – causative ♦
    Commented Oct 30 at 10:27
  • 1
    Like, say it's a cultural norm for disputants to engage in discussions where you don't attack the other person, you hear them out, and you directly answer their questions about your position. It's much harder to be dishonest once you've agreed to such rules, especially if others who share the norm are looking on.
    – causative ♦
    Commented Oct 30 at 10:38
  • 2
    @causative I am not hinting on a characterization of men like in your first comment. Because I do not know any scientific anthropology which clarifies those components of human social behaviour, which are inherited from biological evolution. Possibly socio-biology is a start. - Moreover I try to avoid any moral assessment of adaptive behaviour during the biological evolution.
    – Jo Wehler
    Commented Oct 30 at 13:54
  • OP asks, whether some position has been explicitly discussed. Instead of answering the question or even providing a meaningful background - you start discussing it. Such an answer is irrelevant noise.
    – fdreger
    Commented Oct 31 at 7:58
  • @fdreger Part of the question has been discussed in Kant’s later work “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” from 1795. Of course there are also many relevant passages in Kant’s first two Critiques. They deal with certain issues from the OP’s question. But Kant could not take into account sociology and the theory of evolution.
    – Jo Wehler
    Commented Oct 31 at 8:14
2

From Conifold:

This sounds close to what Aaaronson advocates as "Bayesian rationality" and "Aumannian ideal" for epistemic communities in Common Knowledge and Aumann’s Agreement Theorem:"We get a clear picture of what rational disagreements should look like: they should follow unbiased random walks, until sooner or later they terminate in common knowledge of complete agreement... the tension between these two different views of rationality, the normative and the Bayesian, generates a lot of the most intractable debates of the modern world."

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .