The Enigma of Reason

These subjects were reasoning. They were working quite hard at reasoning. But it was not reasoning in search of truth; it was reasoning in support of their emotional reactions. It was reasoning as described by the philosopher David Hume, who wrote in 1739 that “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any

leur « théorie argumentative du raisonnement16 », que Guillaume de Lamérie résume en ces termes sur le site de l’Association française pour l’information scientifique : « Cette théorie fait l’hypothèse que les décisions sont le plus souvent prises intuitivement, le raisonnement ne servant qu’à justifier a posteriori pourquoi telle décision a été pr

reason-respecting tendency.

“Reasoning-why,” in contrast, is the process “by which we describe how we think we reached a judgment, or how we think another person could reach that judgment.”34 “Reasoning-why” can occur only for creatures that have language and a need to explain themselves to other creatures. “Reasoning-why” is not automatic; it’s conscious, it sometimes feels

intentions themselves come from, and what determines their character in every instance, remains perfectly mysterious in subjective terms.

Conscious reasoning functions like a press secretary who automatically justifies any position taken by the president.