Pursuing praxis

I was thinking about Aristotle’s "intuitive reasoning" and induction - which I unsubtly equate - and protothetical logic. And, having only a vague conception about the point and validity of the latter, much less its methodologies (so my evaluation remains on hold, though distinctly leaning towards "bunk"), my conclusions can only aspire to that level of clarity.

Nevertheless, in asking questions about (correct me if I’m wrong on protothetical logic) the origin of reason, the identification/definition of the unit or "one" (and the attendant historical setting, and therefore the purpose and range of applicability of the definition), and therefore the question of whether we are innately or arbitrarily rational, it seems faintly obvious to me that, as HWB Joseph has said, men can’t create logic, study it or talk of it, if men weren’t already rational (by capacity and choice, if not by necessity). And, given that our mode of reasoning - and therefore logic - are derived from both the observed nature of reality and the particular ways the human mind functions, it seems even more obvious that the human mind has more than adequately evolved in the context of said reality, and is in a sense programmed for knowing it tolerably well. That programming - or capacity or tendency or whatever - may even be a primary causal basis of our evolution, but that’s beyond our current knowledge and in need of demonstration. It’s also not essential to this argument.

And, if we are considering the origin of reason and our natural modes of cognitive operation, the most obvious line of inquiry and investigation is the domain of biology. For example: how does induction work at the neurological level? [current black blox]. Do other animals possess rudimentary or even highly complex and competent forms of induction? [Anyone can train a dog.] What happens if you artificially screw with an animal’s experience of perceived reality - if you change things arbitrarily such that no patterns emerge, nothing is reliable or repeatable? What happens to the animal behaviorally, psychologically, physiologically? In what environmental, social and cognitive context(s) did the human lineage evolve? Even, test the tenets of logic - psychologically and experimentally. Can a thing both be and not be something simultaneously? (That’d be a hideously boring experiment, but I won’t speculate on the desires and motivations of some; many important things are intolerable to some subset of the human population.)

In short, I think Aristotle’s "intuitive reasoning", and the mechanism of induction, are biologically based and therefore explainable, and not philosophically problematic. Quasi-automatic knowledge by induction is in many ways a given, and a valid starting point (a good working hypothesis) for more explicit investigations and knowledge-building. But it’s the job of scientists to explain how induction happens. And describing it won’t change the phenomenon of induction, though it can add tremendous amounts of context and understanding. This may in turn flesh out our understanding of human cognition, psychology, epistemology, etc - but I don’t think it will fundamentally change philosophy.

And, while it’s possible that the definition of the unit was arbitrary at its time of creation, by subsequent use (and therefore by thousands of years of implicit experimentation) it has lost any veneer or odor of the arbitrary, and is a fully legitimate and vetted philosophic concept underlying pretty much all human thought and action. I would even argue underlying the action of conscious animals (another testable hypothesis).

Thus, I have secured the rug that was once nearly pulled out from under me, and explains why I am not apologetic for my strong affinity to logic, reason, rationality, and analysis. By my experience and analysis I think that it works, when used carefully and properly, which leads me to accept its foundations.