RoR: Forum

Post 0

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 - 1:56am

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Perhaps Sowell got it backwards? According to the Oxford English Dictionary "rational", meaning "endowed with reason", comes from the word "ratio". The word "ratio" in turn is a form of the Latin verb "reor" meaning "to think"; its primary meaning as an English noun is a "reason or rationale" and its secondary meaning is the familiar mathematical meaning. Then there is the Latin verb "ratiocinari" meaning "to calculate or to deliberate"; it is the root of the English verb "ratiocinate" meaning "to reason". Since "ratiocinari" would appear to be derived from "ratio" the mathematical meaning seems to be an extension and hence derivative of the earlier "reason". I think linguistically the primary meaning has to do with reasoning, rational thought, and the mathematical sense came later.

Post 1

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 - 2:22pm

Bookmark

Link

Edit

I don't know why people are tracing 'reason' or 'rational' or 'ratio' back to their Latin roots. While the Romans were still living in caves (intellectually speaking), the Ancient Greeks were examining the ideas of thinking - of logic (Logos) and the exercise of logic is the heart of reasoning.

For Rand, 'rational' refers to that process of the human mind that involves focusing on the facts of reality. For her it is a virtue, and the only way to judge values and ones only guide to the actions that life requires.

It obviously is a process that involves all of the following:

volition (focusing the mind),
active thinking rather than avoiding or staying fuzzy or unfocused,
it requires facts as starting places,
Using the rules of logic as the standard to apply to the methods and arguments involved,
Distinguishing reason from emotionalism or mysticism or faith or psychological defenses like denial, rationalization, etc.

The first 'ratios' we had to work out go back to pre-history and involved cost-benefit analysis - the simple 'reckoning' on which of two alternatives would be best.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 8/04, 12:07pm)

Post 2

Saturday, August 6, 2011 - 4:17am

Bookmark

Link

Edit

I'm not an expert in etymology, nor was that the point of posting this quote. I like the observation that weighing one thing against another is a critical component of rationality. Objectivists tend to think about irrationality in terms of evasion. You evade facts. You evade logical conclusions. You are irrational. But in my experience, the biggest fallacies and most frequent form of irrationality comes from an inability or unwillingness to consider degrees. It's not simply evasion, as if they found the facts unpleasant and wanted to ignore them. It's more of a psycho-epistemological approach to thinking. They prefer dichotomous thinking. Answers are true or false. Yes or no. Moral or immoral. All or nothing. They don't see degrees because they can classify any concrete as A or non-A.

Sowell discusses elsewhere the tendency of liberals to ignore costs and to reject trade-offs. Comparisons are rejected, and those making the comparisons are accused of immorality. This is clearly a case of irrationality, and the rational requirement that's missing is the weighing of one thing against another.

As for the etymology, I've heard this description before. As I said, I'm not an expert. The original root seems to be focused on calculating or reckoning, so it seems possible. But that would just make an important insight appear to be rooted in the past.