Definition of "Reason"
Introduction 02/04
In this thesis, the term “reason” is defined as “a principle of predictability—one that is valid within a certain scope, governs essentially everything within that scope, and determines relationships within it, while having no active influence on entities outside that scope, and whose existence is grounded by human beings.” Furthermore, this thesis examines this “principle” primarily from the perspective of a worldview.
The phrase “one that is valid within a certain scope” means that it cannot be applied to everything that exists in this world. Therefore, it naturally follows that various “reasons” can exist, and this also implies that reasons within the scope of one “reason” do not apply to reasons within the scope of another “reason.”
What is believed within a worldview called “A” does not necessarily apply to people who believe in a different worldview called “B.” It could be said that this is precisely what is meant by the phrase “having no active influence on entities outside that scope.”
For example, while it can be said that jurisprudence and economics are each distinct “reasons,” they do not typically encroach upon one another’s domains. That is why the separate bodies of thought known as “jurisprudence” and “economics” continue to coexist within a single world.
The statement “governs essentially everything within that scope” means that just because something exists within a specific “reason” does not mean it completely rejects other “reasons.”
For example, while it can be said that the law is one form of “reason”, that does not mean we live our daily lives entirely according to legal principles. However, the law is divided into detailed provisions as part of an effort to ensure that it can, in principle, cover every aspect of our lives.
Basically, it can be said that the “reason” of law is useful in daily life when people actively choose to handle matters in accordance with that “reason.”
In addition, while laws are codified in the form of statutory provisions, there is also common law—laws that have not been codified but are practiced in daily life (i.e., “reason”).
Common law is clearly recognized only when it is acknowledged, through human agency, as “law” in the form of custom.
In other words, while laws certainly exist in our daily lives, we often forget about them; it is only when they are verified by human beings that their existence becomes clearly recognized. This is what it means to say that “whose existence is grounded by human beings.”
When you think about it that way, it can be said that “reason” is different from “theory.”
A “theory” is something devised by humans based on certain principles. Therefore, a theory does not go beyond the scope of human prediction. If something related to that theory goes beyond the scope of human prediction, the theory will either be overturned or revised.
In contrast, “reason” is not something devised by humans; it exists independently of human thought and the ego.
In other words, if one entity and another exert a certain influence on each other, then—regardless of whether humans recognize that influence or not—it can be said that “reason” exists there.
That is where it differs significantly from “theory.” A theory only comes into existence once it is constructed by humans. While “theory” is designed to conform to human intentions, “reason” exists independently of human consciousness and operates of its own accord.
However, a “reason” that is not recognized by humans is treated as if it did not exist. In other words, humans cannot think about something they do not recognize.
Furthermore, “reason” is different from “law.”
A law is a relationship that always exists under certain circumstances. In a sense, “reason” can be described as a collection of laws; however, “reason” functions as if it were a single personality.
For example, suppose a person always behaves in a certain way under certain circumstances. If that person’s behavior is repeated many times, would we call it that person’s “law”?
I won’t say that. This is because human behavior can be changed through one’s own consciousness. Just because someone always acts a certain way doesn’t mean they will act exactly the same way under specific circumstances. However, an observer can make predictions based on past experience.
That is what “predictability” means. Therefore, although “reason” may seem irresponsible, it is something that “governs essentially everything within that scope, and determines relationships within it”—and naturally, there are things that fall outside its scope.
I believe that every worldview has its own specific “reason,” and the reason mutual understanding between different worldviews is difficult is that these respective “reasons” are not effectively translated into one another.
Therefore, in this thesis, after presenting several examples of the “reasons” inherent in the worldviews that personally interest me, I would like to consider how it might be possible to understand various worldviews.
In the course of that work, I began to think that when people try to explain their worldview, they generally fall into one of two categories.
For the time being, I have decided to call one of them the “Symbolized Worldview” and the other the “Abstracted Worldview.” Therefore, in this thesis, I intend to structure the discussion in every chapter based on these two perspectives for understanding these worldviews.
Now, let’s define the two perspectives that capture this worldview: the “Symbolized Worldview” and the “Abstracted Worldview.”
The phrase “one that is valid within a certain scope” means that it cannot be applied to everything that exists in this world. Therefore, it naturally follows that various “reasons” can exist, and this also implies that reasons within the scope of one “reason” do not apply to reasons within the scope of another “reason.”
What is believed within a worldview called “A” does not necessarily apply to people who believe in a different worldview called “B.” It could be said that this is precisely what is meant by the phrase “having no active influence on entities outside that scope.”
For example, while it can be said that jurisprudence and economics are each distinct “reasons,” they do not typically encroach upon one another’s domains. That is why the separate bodies of thought known as “jurisprudence” and “economics” continue to coexist within a single world.
The statement “governs essentially everything within that scope” means that just because something exists within a specific “reason” does not mean it completely rejects other “reasons.”
For example, while it can be said that the law is one form of “reason”, that does not mean we live our daily lives entirely according to legal principles. However, the law is divided into detailed provisions as part of an effort to ensure that it can, in principle, cover every aspect of our lives.
Basically, it can be said that the “reason” of law is useful in daily life when people actively choose to handle matters in accordance with that “reason.”
In addition, while laws are codified in the form of statutory provisions, there is also common law—laws that have not been codified but are practiced in daily life (i.e., “reason”).
Common law is clearly recognized only when it is acknowledged, through human agency, as “law” in the form of custom.
In other words, while laws certainly exist in our daily lives, we often forget about them; it is only when they are verified by human beings that their existence becomes clearly recognized. This is what it means to say that “whose existence is grounded by human beings.”
When you think about it that way, it can be said that “reason” is different from “theory.”
A “theory” is something devised by humans based on certain principles. Therefore, a theory does not go beyond the scope of human prediction. If something related to that theory goes beyond the scope of human prediction, the theory will either be overturned or revised.
In contrast, “reason” is not something devised by humans; it exists independently of human thought and the ego.
In other words, if one entity and another exert a certain influence on each other, then—regardless of whether humans recognize that influence or not—it can be said that “reason” exists there.
That is where it differs significantly from “theory.” A theory only comes into existence once it is constructed by humans. While “theory” is designed to conform to human intentions, “reason” exists independently of human consciousness and operates of its own accord.
However, a “reason” that is not recognized by humans is treated as if it did not exist. In other words, humans cannot think about something they do not recognize.
Furthermore, “reason” is different from “law.”
A law is a relationship that always exists under certain circumstances. In a sense, “reason” can be described as a collection of laws; however, “reason” functions as if it were a single personality.
For example, suppose a person always behaves in a certain way under certain circumstances. If that person’s behavior is repeated many times, would we call it that person’s “law”?
I won’t say that. This is because human behavior can be changed through one’s own consciousness. Just because someone always acts a certain way doesn’t mean they will act exactly the same way under specific circumstances. However, an observer can make predictions based on past experience.
That is what “predictability” means. Therefore, although “reason” may seem irresponsible, it is something that “governs essentially everything within that scope, and determines relationships within it”—and naturally, there are things that fall outside its scope.
I believe that every worldview has its own specific “reason,” and the reason mutual understanding between different worldviews is difficult is that these respective “reasons” are not effectively translated into one another.
Therefore, in this thesis, after presenting several examples of the “reasons” inherent in the worldviews that personally interest me, I would like to consider how it might be possible to understand various worldviews.
In the course of that work, I began to think that when people try to explain their worldview, they generally fall into one of two categories.
For the time being, I have decided to call one of them the “Symbolized Worldview” and the other the “Abstracted Worldview.” Therefore, in this thesis, I intend to structure the discussion in every chapter based on these two perspectives for understanding these worldviews.
Now, let’s define the two perspectives that capture this worldview: the “Symbolized Worldview” and the “Abstracted Worldview.”