Reason and logic

[organon 0]

"Reason is the faculty by which man grasps truth. Logic is the instrument of reason, the means by which it operates."

Is this entirely true, and are these definitions valid? Do objections come to mind?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

"Reason is the faculty by which man grasps truth. Logic is the instrument of reason, the means by which it operates."

Is this entirely true, and are these definitions valid? Do objections come to mind?

Those are truths about reason and logic, but they're not definitions.

[Paul's Here 0]

"Reason is the faculty by which man grasps truth. Logic is the instrument of reason, the means by which it operates."

Is this entirely true, and are these definitions valid? Do objections come to mind?

1. Your description is not a definition because it does not distinguish how man grasps truth. Nor does it distinguish reason as a faculty from other descriptions, such as "Reason] is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice." (AR Lexicon). Your statement is a rewording of Rand's "Reason is man’s tool of knowledge." Not a denfition.

2. Same issues for logic. Also, using the concept "instrument" in the definition implies some kind of mechanistic process. As thinking and reasoning are processes, logic must include that as an essential element of its definition without implying an element of instrumental mechanism. In this case, your genus and differentia need work for a correct definition. What distinguishes logic from other instruments of reason?

[Paul's Here 0]

And I'm sure that a religious person would say that faith is the faculty by which man grasps truth. So without a additional distinguishing characteristics, your definition is not precise enough.

[organon 0]

Thank you.

Do you consider Rand's "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses" to be a description or a definition, and if a description, what would you offer as a definition?

[Arnold 0]

I'm no expert here, but that looks like a definition to me because of what it excludes. It can only be read one way. For example, "Faith" cannot integrate the material of the senses, and is thus excluded from substitution. At the same time "identifies" and "integrates" are isolated differentia that form the definition of reason. That is my understanding anyway.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I'm no expert here, but that looks like a definition to me because of what it excludes. It can only be read one way. For example, "Faith" cannot integrate the material of the senses, and is thus excluded from substitution. At the same time "identifies" and "integrates" are isolated differentia that form the definition of reason. That is my understanding anyway.

I agree that it is a definition and an accurate one at that.

[Paul's Here 0]

I agree also with Betsy and Arnold.

[organon 0]

What of the material of which one is introspectively aware? Should this be included in the definition of reason?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

What of the material of which one is introspectively aware? Should this be included in the definition of reason?

Sure. Introspective awareness is "material provided by man's senses" too, but in the form of sensations -- pleasure, pain, hunger, thirst, etc and the somatic manifestations of emotions -- rather than the extrospective "five senses" -- sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.

[ewv 0]

What of the material of which one is introspectively aware? Should this be included in the definition of reason?

See the chapter in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology on "Concepts of Consciousness".