Quoting Sastra With Logic And Reason

[suchandra 1]

Article below by Robert J. Sternberg, Tufts University Medford, USA, was published at science.org and examines Philip Johnson-Laird's book, How We Reason, and highlights, "emotional contamination of reasoning".

 

Vaishnavas somehow also use logic and reason when choosing which sastrical quote to bring forward. Could there be also something like "emotional contamination of reasoning" when quoting from sastra? Just as we see topics like, "Do we originate from Vaikuntha?", seems to create different camps of understanding, although quoting from authoritative source.

 

"For logicians who want to accept only that which is proven through logic and argument, it is a fact that without logic and reason there can be no question of accepting the Absolute Truth. Unfortunately, when such logicians take to this path without the mercy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, they remain on the platform of logic and argument and do not advance in spiritual life. However, if one is intelligent enough to apply his arguments and logic to the subtle understanding of the fundamental spiritual substance, he will be able to know that a poor fund of knowledge established on the basis of material logic cannot help one understand the Absolute Truth, which is beyond the reach of imperfect senses. The Mahābhārata therefore says, acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. (Mahābhārata, Bhīṣma-parva 5.22) How can that which is beyond the imagination or sensory speculation of mundane creatures be approached simply by logic? Logic and argument are very poor in spiritual strength and always imperfect when applied to spiritual understanding. By putting forward mundane logic one frequently comes to the wrong conclusion regarding the Absolute Truth, and as a result of such a conclusion one may fall down to accept a body like that of a jackal.

Despite all this, those who are actually inquisitive to understand the philosophy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu through logic and argument are welcome. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī addresses them, “Please put Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s mercy to your crucial test, and if you are actually a logician you will come to the right conclusion that there is no personality more merciful than Lord Caitanya.” Let the logicians compare all the results of other humanitarian work with the merciful activities of Lord Caitanya. If their judgment is impartial, they will understand that no other humanitarian activities can surpass those of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu." Adi 8.16

 

 

 

How Far Can We Go with Reason?

by Robert J. Sternberg, Bailou Hall, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA

Just as its name implies, How We Reason (Oxford University Press, 583 pp.) is nominally about how we reason. Its not-so-hidden agenda is actually quite a bit broader: namely, to argue that reasoning can help people lead successful lives and that to the extent that people fail, it is in part because emotions begin to color their reasoning. Beyond establishing the importance of reasoning, Philip N.Johnson-Laird contends that reasoning can be understood in terms of his theory of mental models - according to which people, in the reasoning process, manipulate abstract mental representations that allow them to reach conclusions.

Johnson-Laird burst upon the cognitive-psychology scene with the publication of Psychology of Reasoning (1). That book was fairly narrowly focused, primarily on deductive reasoning. A later book (2) sought to characterize reasoning as well as other cognitive processes in terms of mental models. The current magnum opus goes quite a bit beyond its predecessors in dealing with problems of induction, creativity, and insight. In past work, Johnson-Laird has devoted quite a bit of effort to battling the theories of his competitors, such as Lance Rips (3). In this book, Johnson-Laird's goal is not so much to fight the opposition but to argue that human reason can solve many problems facing the world.

Historically the study of reasoning has not been at the center of psychology in general or of cognitive psychology in particular. There are far more cognitive psychologists studying perception and memory. Johnson-Laird has strived throughout his career at the University of Sussex, the Medical Research Council Applied Psychology Unit in Cambridge, and now Princeton University to raise the profile of the study of reasoning. He has been at least somewhat successful. He, his students, and his collaborators have received international recognition for their work.

Four big questions arise from the book. First, to what extent does Johnson-Laird succeed in describing how we reason? Second, to what extent do the reasoning structures (mental models) Johnson-Laird posits characterize scientific reasoning, a major focus of the book? Third, to what extent does reasoning account for the kinds of thinking artists, writers, composers, and others in the humanities and arts use in their work? Finally, how much help is reasoning of the kind described by Johnson-Laird to us all in our everyday lives?

With regard to how we reason, Johnson-Laird's account may not be entirely correct, and it is certainly not complete. To give two examples: Expert reasoning probably relies more on pattern recognition than would follow from mental models. And the fundamental problem of induction - why we make certain inductions but not others - is scarcely addressed. But no other current theory of reasoning is complete either.

Not that many years ago, students were being taught, for example, that syllogisms were solved by heuristics, such as atmosphere (if there is a negation in a premise, the solution involves a negation; if there is a particular, the solution involves a particular) or conversion (people read, "If A, then B", as equivalent to, "If B, then A"). Considering how woefully inadequate these past accounts were, Johnson-Laird has brought us very far along in understanding how we reason.

Johnson-Laird gives fascinating accounts of some major examples of scientific reasoning, such as the Wright brothers' designing of the first successful airplane, how the codes underlying the Nazi Enigma machine were broken, and how John Snow discovered the link between fetal contamination of drinking water and outbreaks of cholera. His account of deductive inferences is more compelling than his account of inductive and creative processes.

Although his broad characterizations are useful, he does not really solve or even address, for example, the crucial problem of creativity: How do we generate novel ideas in the first place? His theory is better at characterizing how we assess whether our ideas are good ideas. The author believes his theory of mental models would characterize thinking in the humanities and arts as well. That is a leap of faith on his part and would be a bigger leap on the part of a reader.

There is no evidence - at least in the book (at its end, Johnson-Laird acknowledges that his case histories include nothing from these fields) - that this is the case. Lastly, How We Reason is at its weakest in showing how Johnson-Laird's model of reasoning or, really, any model applies to everyday life.

If you want to know how to solve the problems of what to do about the intervention in Iraq, runaway government spending, or a failing marriage, you probably will find little in this bock to help. Johnson-Laird believes that many of the world's ills are caused by emotional contamination of reasoning, an idea that goes back to some of the earliest theorists (4). He tends to view emotion as the cause of failings in reasoning. Yet, one might instead argue that emotion is what makes the world run round.

If we want to understand how to rectify our own, and the world's, problems, we had better understand emotional reasoning in its own right, rather than simply label it as an aberration. Two - process theories of reasoning (5), which posit an experiential, a-rational system, as well as the more rational one of which Johnson-Laird writes, seem a large step toward that goal.

 

References

1. P C. Wason, P. N. )ohnson Laird, Psychology of Reasoning:

Structure and Content (Ballford, London,1972).

z. F N. Johnson Laird, Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive

Science of Langvage, Inference, and Consciousness

(Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983).

3. L. ]. Rips, The Psychology of Proof (MIT Press, Cambridge,

MA, 1994).

4. R. ). Woodworth, S. B. Sells, ). Exil. Psychol. 18, 451

(1935),

S. S. A. Sloman, Psychol. Bull. 119, 3 (1996).

[AncientMariner 0]

 

Article below by Robert J. Sternberg, Tufts University Medford, USA, was published at science.org and examines Philip Johnson-Laird's book, How We Reason, and highlights, "emotional contamination of reasoning".

 

Vaishnavas somehow also use logic and reason when choosing which sastrical quote to bring forward. Could there be also something like "emotional contamination of reasoning" when quoting from sastra? Just as we see topics like, "Do we originate from Vaikuntha?", seems to create different camps of understanding, although quoting from authoritative source.

 

 

 

"For logicians who want to accept only that which is proven through logic and argument, it is a fact that without logic and reason there can be no question of accepting the Absolute Truth. Unfortunately, when such logicians take to this path without the mercy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, they remain on the platform of logic and argument and do not advance in spiritual life. However, if one is intelligent enough to apply his arguments and logic to the subtle understanding of the fundamental spiritual substance, he will be able to know that a poor fund of knowledge established on the basis of material logic cannot help one understand the Absolute Truth, which is beyond the reach of imperfect senses. The Mahābhārata therefore says, acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. (Mahābhārata, Bhīṣma-parva 5.22) How can that which is beyond the imagination or sensory speculation of mundane creatures be approached simply by logic? Logic and argument are very poor in spiritual strength and always imperfect when applied to spiritual understanding. By putting forward mundane logic one frequently comes to the wrong conclusion regarding the Absolute Truth, and as a result of such a conclusion one may fall down to accept a body like that of a jackal.

Despite all this, those who are actually inquisitive to understand the philosophy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu through logic and argument are welcome. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī addresses them, “Please put Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s mercy to your crucial test, and if you are actually a logician you will come to the right conclusion that there is no personality more merciful than Lord Caitanya.” Let the logicians compare all the results of other humanitarian work with the merciful activities of Lord Caitanya. If their judgment is impartial, they will understand that no other humanitarian activities can surpass those of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu." Adi 8.16

 

 

 

How Far Can We Go with Reason?<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

Robert J. Sternberg

Just as its name implies, How We Reason is nominally about how we reason. Its not-so-hidden agenda is actually quite a bit broader: namely, to argue that reasoning can help people lead successful lives and that to the extent that people fail, it is in part because emotions begin to color their reasoning. Beyond establishing the importance of reasoning, Philip Johnson-Laird contends that reasoning can be understood in terms of his theory of mental models - according to which people, in the reasoning process, manipulate abstract mental representations that allow them to reach conclusions.

Johnson-Laird burst upon the cognitive-psychology scene with the publication of Psychology of Reasoning (1). That book was fairly narrowly focused, primarily on deductive reasoning. A later book (2) sought to characterize reasoning as well as other cognitive processes in terms of mental models. The current magnum opus goes quite a bit beyond its predecessors in dealing with problems of induction, creativity, and insight. In past work, Johnson-Laird has devoted quite a bit of effort to battling the theories of his competitors, such as Lance Rips (3). In this book, Johnson-Laird's goal is not so much to fight the opposition but to argue that human reason can solve many problems facing the world.

Historically the study of reasoning has not been at the center of psychology in general or of cognitive psychology in particular. There are far more cognitive psychologists studying perception and memory. Johnson-Laird has strived throughout his career at the University of Sussex, the Medical Research Council Applied Psychology Unit in Cambridge, and now Princeton University to raise the profile of the study of reasoning. He has been at least somewhat successful. He, his students, and his collaborators have received international recognition for their work.

Four big questions arise from the book. First, to what extent does Johnson-Laird succeed in describing how we reason? Second, to what extent do the reasoning structures (mental models) Johnson-Laird posits characterize scientific reasoning, a major focus of the book? Third, to what extent does reasoning account for the kinds of thinking artists, writers, composers, and others in the humanities and arts use in their work? Finally, how much help is reasoning of the kind described by Johnson-Laird to us all in our everyday lives?

With regard to how we reason, Johnson-Laird's account may not be entirely correct, and it is certainly not complete. To give two examples: Expert reasoning probably relies more on pattern recognition than would follow from mental models. And the fundamental problem of induction - why we make certain inductions but not others - is scarcely addressed. But no other current theory of reasoning is complete either.

Not that many years ago, students were being taught, for example, that syllogisms were solved by heuristics, such as atmosphere (if there is a negation in a premise, the solution involves a negation; if there is a particular, the solution involves a particular) or conversion (people read, "If A, then B", as equivalent to, "If B, then A"). Considering how woefully inadequate these past accounts were, Johnson-Laird has brought us very far along in understanding how we reason.

Johnson-Laird gives fascinating accounts of some major examples of scientific reasoning, such as the Wright brothers' designing of the first successful airplane, how the codes underlying the Nazi Enigma machine were broken, and how John Snow discovered the link between fetal contamination of drinking water and outbreaks of cholera. His account of deductive inferences is more compelling than his account of inductive and creative processes.

Although his broad characterizations are useful, he does not really solve or even address, for example, the crucial problem of creativity: How do we generate novel ideas in the first place? His theory is better at characterizing how we assess whether our ideas are good ideas. The author believes his theory of mental models would characterize thinking in the humanities and arts as well. That is a leap of faith on his part and would be a bigger leap on the part of a reader.

There is no evidence - at least in the book (at its end, Johnson-Laird acknowledges that his case histories include nothing from these fields) - that this is the case. Lastly, How We Reason is at its weakest in showing how Johnson-Laird's model of reasoning or, really, any model applies to everyday life.

If you want to know how to solve the problems of what to do about the intervention in Iraq, runaway government spending, or a failing marriage, you probably will find little in this bock to help. Johnson-Laird believes that many of the world's ills are caused by emotional contamination of reasoning, an idea that goes back to some of the earliest theorists (4). He tends to view emotion as the cause of failings in reasoning. Yet, one might instead argue that emotion is what makes the world run round.

If we want to understand how to rectify our own, and the world's, problems, we had better understand emotional reasoning in its own right, rather than simply label it as an aberration. Two - process theories of reasoning (5), which posit an experiential, a-rational system, as well as the more rational one of which Johnson-Laird writes, seem a large step toward that goal.

References

1. P C. Wason, P. N. )ohnson Laird, Psychology of Reasoning:

Structure and Content (Ballford, London,1972).

z. F N. Johnson Laird, Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive

Science of Langvage, Inference, and Consciousness

(Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983).

3. L. ]. Rips, The Psychology of Proof (MIT Press, Cambridge,

MA, 1994).

4. R. ). Woodworth, S. B. Sells, ). Exil. Psychol. 18, 451

(1935),

S. S. A. Sloman, Psychol. Ball. 119, 3 (1996).

 

 

I generally don't tend to get that deep into it all. The pastimes of Krsna are where the real nectar is at, all the endless philosophical debates I suppose are fun on some level and for some they lead to higher realizations and all that but I like reading about Lord Rsabadheva and how he was the emporer of the World and then ended up renouncing the world and wandered around like a madman. I seem to be happier when I follow the motto keep it simple stupid.

[suchandra 1]

 

I generally don't tend to get that deep into it all. The pastimes of Krsna are where the real nectar is at, all the endless philosophical debates I suppose are fun on some level and for some they lead to higher realizations and all that but I like reading about Lord Rsabadheva and how he was the emporer of the World and then ended up renouncing the world and wandered around like a madman. I seem to be happier when I follow the motto keep it simple stupid.

 

When instructing His sons Lord Rsabhadeva put forward, backed with logic and reason, some important points of deeper spiritual understanding:

 

SB 5.5.14: As I have advised you, My dear sons, you should act accordingly. Be very careful. By these means you will be freed from the ignorance of the desire for fruitive activity, and the knot of bondage in the heart will be completely severed. For further advancement, you should also give up the means. That is, you should not become attached to the process of liberation itself.

SB 5.5.15: If one is serious about going back home, back to Godhead, he must consider the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead the summum bonum and chief aim of life. If he is a father instructing his sons, a spiritual master instructing his disciples, or a king instructing his citizens, he must instruct them as I have advised. Without being angry, he should continue giving instructions, even if his disciple, son or citizen is sometimes unable to follow his order. Ignorant people who engage in pious and impious activities should be engaged in devotional service by all means. They should always avoid fruitive activity. If one puts into the bondage of karmic activity his disciple, son or citizen who is bereft of transcendental vision, how will one profit? It is like leading a blind man to a dark well and causing him to fall in.

SB 5.5.16: Due to ignorance, the materialistic person does not know anything about his real self-interest, the auspicious path in life. He is simply bound to material enjoyment by lusty desires, and all his plans are made for this purpose. For temporary sense gratification, such a person creates a society of envy, and due to this mentality, he plunges into the ocean of suffering. Such a foolish person does not even know about this.

SB 5.5.17: If someone is ignorant and addicted to the path of saḿsāra, how can one who is actually learned, merciful and advanced in spiritual knowledge engage him in fruitive activity and thus further entangle him in material existence? If a blind man is walking down the wrong path, how can a gentleman allow him to continue on his way to danger? How can he approve this method? No wise or kind man can allow this.

SB 5.5.18: "One who cannot deliver his dependents from the path of repeated birth and death should never become a spiritual master, a father, a husband, a mother or a worshipable demigod.

[AncientMariner 0]

 

When instructing His sons Lord Rsabhadeva put forward, backed with logic and reason, some important points of deeper spiritual understanding:

 

SB 5.5.14: As I have advised you, My dear sons, you should act accordingly. Be very careful. By these means you will be freed from the ignorance of the desire for fruitive activity, and the knot of bondage in the heart will be completely severed. For further advancement, you should also give up the means. That is, you should not become attached to the process of liberation itself.

SB 5.5.15: If one is serious about going back home, back to Godhead, he must consider the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead the summum bonum and chief aim of life. If he is a father instructing his sons, a spiritual master instructing his disciples, or a king instructing his citizens, he must instruct them as I have advised. Without being angry, he should continue giving instructions, even if his disciple, son or citizen is sometimes unable to follow his order. Ignorant people who engage in pious and impious activities should be engaged in devotional service by all means. They should always avoid fruitive activity. If one puts into the bondage of karmic activity his disciple, son or citizen who is bereft of transcendental vision, how will one profit? It is like leading a blind man to a dark well and causing him to fall in.

SB 5.5.16: Due to ignorance, the materialistic person does not know anything about his real self-interest, the auspicious path in life. He is simply bound to material enjoyment by lusty desires, and all his plans are made for this purpose. For temporary sense gratification, such a person creates a society of envy, and due to this mentality, he plunges into the ocean of suffering. Such a foolish person does not even know about this.

SB 5.5.17: If someone is ignorant and addicted to the path of saḿsāra, how can one who is actually learned, merciful and advanced in spiritual knowledge engage him in fruitive activity and thus further entangle him in material existence? If a blind man is walking down the wrong path, how can a gentleman allow him to continue on his way to danger? How can he approve this method? No wise or kind man can allow this.

SB 5.5.18: "One who cannot deliver his dependents from the path of repeated birth and death should never become a spiritual master, a father, a husband, a mother or a worshipable demigod.

 

 

Here is my personal favorite:

 

SB 5.14.46 Devotees interested in hearing and chanting [śravaṇaḿ kīrtanam] regularly discuss the pure characteristics of Bharata Mahārāja and praise his activities. If one submissively hears and chants about the all-auspicious Mahārāja Bharata, one's life span and material opulences certainly increase. One can become very famous and easily attain promotion to the heavenly planets, or attain liberation by merging into the existence of the Lord. Whatever one desires can be attained simply by hearing, chanting and glorifying the activities of Mahārāja Bharata. In this way, one can fulfill all his material and spiritual desires. One does not have to ask anyone else for these things, for simply by studying the life of Mahārāja Bharata, one can attain all desirable things.