Reasoning: the Lifeblood of Philosophy

“To argue in support of an opinion or to provide evidence to justify a statement requires basic skills of general reasoning, which are not innate abilities.” - Tim Van Gelder, reasoning sensei

Reasoning, the lifeblood of philosophy, is something everyone does, but most people do not do well, except for academic philosophers.¹ However, philosophers in academia have lost the plot of philosophy: the love of wisdom. In a survey amongst academic philosophers, the majority choose seeking understanding first and truth second as the aim of philosophy, with wisdom coming in third place.

It’s time to bring wisdom back to the top spot. People in the “Wisdom Commons” are endeavoring to make this happen. Yet, the wisdom commoners are focused on practicing fancy things² other than reasoning, such as embodiment and imaginal meditations, unfolding and flow-state inquiries (aka “Aletheia” and “dialogos”), part works, crying therapies, ritual artistry, and making up new terms.

All of the above practices are wonderful, and many emphasize the body, which is a wise response to the head-heaviness of all the critical thinking and “mindful” practices popular today. From my experience inquiring with fellow travelers in the Wisdom Commons, I’ve found that their reasoning skills are often lacking and are not on par with philosophers in academia.

Midjourney prompt: Wisdom commoners reasoning well.

I desire to combine the two worlds, installing the reasoning prowess of the academic philosophers with the wholesome sensefulness of the wisdom commoners. I’d like to see such a combination emerge, and I am called to discover how to teach it. I am taking solopreneur Justin Welsh’s “Creator MBA” course, and he recommends creating a course based on one’s “learned obsession,” something someone learned through being obsessed with it. I have been secretly obsessed with reasoning well with my body for years.

I am unsure about how to go about teaching this. Reasoning, primarily when taught in informal logic or critical thinking courses, is notoriously boring to learn, probably because it is taught in a disembodied way. The emphasis on teaching logical fallacies and cognitive biases is highly overrated, so I’m inclined to steer clear of those. I wonder what is the best way to visually display one’s reasoning: argument stanzas or argument mapping?

I prefer the former, but the research points to the latter as more efficacious. What about the primary forms of reasoning: deductive, inductive, and abductive? Do they need to be taught?

When it comes to systems of logic, should systems that fall outside “classical logic,” aka “deviant logics,” such as “paraconsistent logic,” be considered? Moreover, should a history of reasoning be presented, along with its different developmental stages? In the “Rewilding Reason” entry, I proposed four stages of reasoning, gesturing toward a fifth.

If a fifth stage of reasoning emerged, it would transcend the limitations inherent in terms that categorize eras by adding prefixes to the word “modern.” It would also incorporate all of the sensefulness that the wisdom commoners offer. The only approach I know of that respects both felt senses and reasoning is Eugene T. Gendlin’s “Thinking at the Edge.” Still, it feels like a limiting modality, carrying the baggage of psychotherapeutic culture.

If I were to teach the lifeblood of philosophy, the spirit of the love of wisdom has to be chiefly present. I’d also insist that such reasoning be wild, weird, and weaponizable; the latter surely will be controversial to the cordial wisdom commoners. I’ll go through each:

Wild. Once one sinks deep into the body, dances with intuition, and listens to the primordial callings of the “daemon,” one’s reasoning becomes unpredictable, surprising, and wild. One neuters reasoning’s potential when making reason a handmaiden for “truth,” especially if one’s understanding of truth has a modern bias. Let’s release any neediness for truth and see what wild adventures reasoning will take our bodies on.

Weird. Once one becomes intimately aware of another’s logical space and embodies it, one starts to experience the world as the other does. When delving into as many “meme tribes” as I have, fully honoring their reasonings, things become weird. And weird can become fun. All reality tunnels begin to reveal themselves, opening up the option space in the multiverse, enabling agentic shamanoids to weave their holistic spells. Or, more normally said, it allows one to communicate and understand a diverse array of groups, healing unnecessary culture war divides within families and communities.

Weaponizable. It’s naive to think something taught for good will not be used for evil. Understanding how something can be weaponized up front, building ethics and even a sport around it (see “The Club”), will neutralize reasoning from being weaponized by bad faith actors. Besides, some people, particularly intellectually arrogant men, have their logical heads so far up their egoic asses that the only response is to smack them out with some hard premises.

I’ll continue to muse on this potential course. In upcoming entries, I may share top-secret reasoning techniques that have assisted me tremendously with reasoning over the years.

If you're interested in having me teach a course on reasoning or my brand of philosophy more generally, kindly complete this survey:

I believe in my ability to teach this subject and feel strongly about its necessity. However, the challenge lies in determining the appropriate framing or marketing approach. It's widely acknowledged among solopreneurs that successful courses typically address one of three key pain points: relationships, wealth, or health. The relevance of reasoning can span all these areas or possibly none, depending on the angle it's presented from.

Although it was not the most exciting session at The Stoa, Nate Otey from ThinkerAnalytix—an organization that emerged from the philosophy department at Harvard University—showcased the concept of argument mapping. I sense integrating these mapping exercises with more embodied psychotechnologies would be delicious.

If you’d like to philosophically inquire with me, and reason well together, you can schedule a call here and read more about my practice here. To join Collective Journalling, become a Less Foolish member and RSVP behind the paywall. You can also show support for my work by subscribing, sharing, or leaving a comment.

What is Collective Journalling? This communal practice happens via Zoom and is 90 mins, with check-ins in the chat at the beginning and an opportunity to connect with fellow journalers in breakout rooms at the end. You do not have to stay the whole time. If you are in an antisocial mood, you do not have to interact with anyone, yet you can still enjoy the coffee shop-esque communal vibe. The session concludes with an optional sharing of a passage in the chat. Most of the time is spent in silence together, individually inquiring about what matters most. A lovely group of people has formed around this practice. The practice occurs on weekdays @ 8 AM ET. RSVP link is behind the paywall.