Customer Reviews

Reason & Analysis (Paul Carus Lectures)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In this his best-known work, rationalist philosopher Brand Blanshard mounts a thorough defense of reason against an onslaught of twentieth-century attacks.

Some of the positions he reviews -- e.g. logical positivism and linguistic analysis -- are no longer as strongly represented as when he wrote. But his positive account of reason is as fresh and important now as then.

In a nutshell, Blanshard's view is that reason is the power of grasping necessary connections; that the universe itself is a coherent logical and causal whole, shot through with threads of necessity and in which every specific "fact" is entailed by every other if we could but see it fully; that to understand something is to see it in the context of its necessary relations to that whole; and that this whole operates causally on our minds to lead us to truth through logic.

(It is this last point that prevents his determinism from being futile and self-undermining: to be determined by reason is, for Blanshard as for Spinoza, what the rational man means by freedom.)

This work also bristles with important insights about the limits of formal logic and offers a theory of universals that has not, to my knowledge, received the attention it deserves. It is, in short, a must-read for any serious student of philosophy.

This is a truly remarkable book. The clearest and most accessible writer the field of philosophy has ever produced takes on what has come to be known as "post-modernism" (ore relativism) and virtually dismantles it in an extraordinarily fair, patient and thorough manner. Blanshard, writing in the sixties, made it is personal mission to champion the importance of reason in human affairs in a series of brilliant books. He succeeded to a remarkable degree. (The others in this series are "Reason and Goodness", arguably the best modern work on ethics, and "Reason and Belief", an antidote to dogmatism in theology.) "Reason and Analysis" would serve admirably as an introduction to 20th century analytical philosophy, and indeed as an introduction to philosophy itself, since the issues it deals with are fundamental to the discipline. In a lifetime of reading of Western philosophy, I have never encountered anything better than Blanshard's books, and "Reason and Analysis" may be the best of them all. If you are sick to death of the mindless assault on Western civilization and its intellectual underpinnings, Blanshard will be your oasis.

Brand Blanshard's work in defence of Reason is incredible. This book was published in 1962, and, given its length (especially at a time when there were no word processors), must have been in the works for some time before then.

Blanshard mostly takes on the philosophical schools of logical positivism and linguistic analysis in this volume, and is an opponent of any school of thought that denies or subverts the role of reason and logic in the acquisition of knowledge.

So what makes this book so good? It is a perfect example of scholarship (similar to George Reisman's "Capitalism"), given its topic. What do I mean by perfect?

1. The author gives a historical overview of the material to be presented. This allows a person to place ideas and positions in
thier historical context, and to understand the nature of the
debate that has preceded the material to be discussed.

2. The author explains the position of the viewpoint that he is in disagreement with. He cites references and quotes individuals.

3. The author demolishes the arguments of the opponents to the greatest extent he probably can, and in a systematic way. This ensures that all variants of the doctrine he is against are taken care of, and that any attempt to resurrect the doctrine in the future can be addressed with the arguments that he has already proposed. He totally refutes logical atomism and other aspects of logical positivism, and shows that linguistic analysis, as well as logical positivism, is self refuting.

4. The author then realizes that it is not enough to destroy - one must also replace the edifice that one has destroyed with a better one, or garbage might find its way onto the site where the old edifice once stood. The author outlines the his view of reason and aspects of it in the final chapters of the book.

A note for Objectivists: Brand Blanshard also rejected the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy in this volume and was legendary enough to merit a place in the Library of Living Philosophers series.

It is very puzzling (and a statement about what is going on in the world today) that Blanshard's works are mostly out of print, while people who could not explain thier positions with the clarity and consistency that he did are worshipped as philosophical legends. He dissects and makes thorough mincemeat of Wittgenstein's writings, showing that they are anything BUT logical(ly consistent). However, I can't find Blanshard's books in any local bookstores, but I can find loads of Wittgenstein's writings.

You don't have to agree with everything in this book to gain from it. Nothing is swept under the rug, and it is quite possible to honestly disagree with some points of view. However, any flaws in the book are unlikely to be attributed to wilful dishonesty on the part of the author by the reader, but will definitely vary, depending on the view point of the reader on certain philosophical issues. However, anybody committed to rationality will find a lot that is good in this book.

It is a good volume and there is lot to be gained by anyone who wants to investigate the lines along which thinking is done.

This is one of the most painstakingly argued philosophies I have ever encountered. Blanshard is obsessive-compulsive in his maniacal destruction of the philosophies of Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russel. Brand Blanshard is a man on the warpath; he will not be satisfied until every aspect of the aforementioned philosophies has been ground into dust. And indeed they are ground into dust. I do not see how anyone could be taken in by the concepts of Russel and Wittgenstein after reading this book.

All of this is not to say that Blanshard is a parasitic writer. There is more to this book than simply the destruction of other peoples' life's work. However, after reading _Reason and Analysis_, I realize that I have not seen this many instances of abuse of a corpse since the infamous "tri-state crematory scandal" in north Georgia. Blanshard simply will not leave these poor guys alone! Wittgenstein has rolled over in his grave so many times that he's gonna need to have his tires rotated. Anyway, this does not really detract from the book as a whole. It is actually a very valuble resource in terms of getting up to date with recent philosophical movements. Blanshard does an excellent job at summarizing previous movements, to the extent that you could get by without reading any of the authors he mentions. Blanshard's detailed synopses of these philosophies is almost as good as reading the original works themselves. A book like this can save you the trouble of having to read many early to mid-twentieth century philosophers.

To summarize, the factual content of this book is nearly inarguable. Blanshard's arguments are very convincing and very meticulous. Overall, this work is utterly fascinating, well written, lucid, and clear. But I will leave the reader with this one last piece of advice: ONLY READ THE FIRST 200 PAGES. That's all you need to get the gist of Blanshard's philosophy. Once you get past the first 200 pages, Blanshard seems to do nothing other than give endless additional examples to uphold an argument that was already convincing enough. The argument had been completely outlined by page 200, and meticulously argued to the point of catharsis. Those who read further must be devastated adherents of Wittgenstein who can only watch with shock and horror as their life's studies go up in smoke. I will not deduct a star for the run-on ending of this book simply because the first 200 pages are so spectacular and so potent that nothing could possibly detract from these initial arguments. This book is easily worth the price of admission ten times over simply for these first 200 pages - I'm only trying to save you time by warning you about the redundncy of the latter part of this book. So by all means go ahead and buy _Reason and Analysis_ - with my condolences to the adherents of Wittgenstein and Russell.

And rationalism wins.

Rationalism has endured a storm of sustained attacks throughout the twentieth century. The faculty of reason, which Blanshard calls the function of grasping necessary connections, is met by skeptics at every turn - men who deny the nature and use of reason and would severely limit the scope of its application. Amidst these attacks, rationalism has of course had its defenders, as woefully few as they were. Brand Blanshard was one of the most lucid defenders of reason in recent times, and this volume is one of the most powerful defenses of reason as a source of genuine knowledge about the nature of things. (the other volumes in the trilogy, _Reason and Belief_ and _Reason and Goodness_, are also excellent and worth hunting down.)

Blanshard's book unfolds much like a story, covering the cornerstones of Western philosophy's history. He examines the role of reason in western thought and describes the key intellectual events that gave rise to its nemesis, philosophy of analysis (linguistic analysis and logical positivism). This is the framework under which he carries out his defense of reason. After an informative dose of philosophical history, he turns to his critique. Chapters are devoted to logical atomism (the theory that the universe is comprised of particular facts not bound by necessity), the verifiability theory of meaning (the cornerstone of positivism, averring that to ascertain any fact we must appeal to our senses), the positivist account of a priori knowledge (it is analytic; knowledge about own concepts but not things), and early and later forms of linguistic analysis (looking to language to solve philosophical problems). His exposition of his opponents' philosophies is very generous and thorough, careful to understand that which he seeks to unravel. In fact, his thoroughness might be called "overkill" - there is hardly a point on which these anti-rationalist philosophy's are unchallenged. Wittgenstein, Russel, Ayer, Ryle, and numerous other key figures in analytic philosophy are demolished at every turn. Yet, Blanshard's fastidious demolition of their philosophies is carried out with utmost tact and intellectual generosity. Truthfully, logical positivism does not seem to require the attention Brand Blanshard gives to it. Rationalism is vindicated merely by asking what sort of proposition is the central positivist thesis: that all meaningful statements are analytic or empirical, but never both. One is invited to ask, of course, what sort of statement is this thesis? Clearly it is not analytic -- it obviously purports to be more than simple explication of our own concepts and words. Yet it is not empirical, at least not in the sense that its validity can be apprehended by our senses. Thus, it must be synthetic a priori, yet on the positivist's own terms this renders their thesis meaningless. This is a grave philosophical error. Despite the wanton overkill, if you savor poignant intellectual argument, Blanshard is among the best and his work is a pleasure to read. His criticisms, where not essential to the destruction of his opponents' position, is brimming with important insights.

With the fortresses of analytic philosophy razed, Blanshard sets out a positive case for reason. He explicates rationalist accounts of formal logic, arithmetic, and geometry, and puts forth an original and compelling theory of universals (that only specific universals exist, but not generic or quantitative universals).

I claimed in my last review that Blanshard rejects the "Analytic-Synthetic" dichotomy. This is not totally true - he simply clarifies what Kant did intuitively (and puts it on a solid logical foundation), tosses away the terms "Analytic" and "Synthetic", and then uses his clarified form of the ideas to refute the assertions of logical positivism that no truths can be deduced without verification in sense.

Reading of this book continually reveal more and more insight to me. I give it my heartiest recommendations.

There is much that can be said for this book. It is well written, plausibly argued, and scrupulously fair-minded in its judgments. Most of the book is devoted to a thorough refutation of logical positivism and linguistic analysis. Blanshard analyzes the most important doctrines of these two schools of philosophy and refutes nearly all of them. For this alone, "Reason and Analysis" deserves high marks. To be sure, Blanshard could be taken to task for being too exhaustive in his refutation. At times, the book can be tedious. Do we really have to get into all the technical nooks and crannies of the logical positivist humbug? Those obsessed with technical questions of philosophy might perhaps think so, but I have my doubts. Blanshard even dabbles briefly in that horror of all philosophical horrors, symbolic logic. But it's all done in a good cause--that is, to demolish the horrors and absurdities of linguistic analysis and logical positivism. It is to be regretted that the refutation of a bad philosophy does not make it go away. Linguistic analysis is still entrenched within academia and, like econometrics, will probably plague the groves of academe for many decades to come.

While I substantially agree with Blanshard's low estimate of logical positivism and linguistic analysis, I do not agree with his motive for attacking these philosophical schools. Blanshard's principle aim in "Reason and Analysis" is to defend rationalist speculation. He is under the illusion that "we can achieve by rational thinking new knowledge about the world" and that a priori knowledge can provide us with insight into the nature of reality. Here I believe he is profoundly mistaken. Rationalistic speculation can be useful in developing testable conjectures about the physical and psychological realms of existence; but by its own light alone, it is not competent to settle any question concerning a matter of fact. Blanshard, because of his idealism, is incapable of understanding this. Unable to conceive of how different reality is from our knowledge of it, he deludes himself into thinking that the structure of the real world can be discovered by examining the structure of our mental apprehension of this world. Since valid thinking must be logical, Blanshard concludes that reality must also be logical. But how can a physical object or an animal psyche be logical? Only the conclusions of an argument can be logical. Physical objects and animal psyches are neither logical nor illogical, they simply exist within the flux of matter and will. For all his intelligence and insight, Blanshard has failed to grasp the dualistic nature of human knowledge. This leads him to habitually confuses our knowledge of things with the things themselves. Since things appear to us as bundles of qualities, Blanshard naively regards things as mere bundles of qualities. But is this a reasonable view of the matter? Is God a mere bundle of qualities? To think such a thing is almost blasphemous. Are human beings mere bundles of qualities? No, to believe that would be solipsism. I fear that on these matters, Blanshard's rationalistic speculations and a priori insight has led him seriously astray.