Reflections on Reason
On long-term future, Kutuzov and metaphysics
It's amazing how, as I age, I begin to question—even turn against—what just a few years earlier I perceived as something obvious and unquestionable.
Recently, I've started to question reason. Reason has played the leading role in my life for as long as I can remember. However, each passing year provides me with examples that, yes—reason is an effective tool—but only for a specific range of issues, and moreover, its capabilities, even with favorable problems, are limited.
What is reason? For the purposes of these notes, let's say it's the ability to process information and draw conclusions from it. How can drawing conclusions (and everything associated with it, such as planning, predicting, calculating, etc.) make life fulfilling? Undoubtedly, it may be necessary for this because, for example, everyone needs to earn money, manage finances, and handle various legal and administrative matters. But beyond that? Can mere analysis of issues related to artificial intelligence make life happy? Can asking questions—however interesting—and answering them bring lasting satisfaction? No—because reason isn't capable of stirring emotions within us, which is essential to achieve that. Ultimately, feelings are the most important when it comes to the subjective perception of one's own life.
The second issue is that reason, even when applied to problems for which it's suited, isn't always able to provide a correct or interesting answer.
For example, if I ask myself the question—where will I be in 10 years?—am I able to answer it? I can only speculate and create scenarios—I can't give a definitive answer. I don't know if I might experience a terrible accident or be struck by a serious illness. I don't know if, with age, I won't change my views on things I currently consider obvious, leading to a series of significant changes. I don't have complete certainty about the geopolitical situation in Europe, and the scenario in which Poland is drawn into a war in the next decade isn't impossible. Besides, how will technological progress, which has been exceptionally dynamic lately, change my everyday life in the next decade? Will I still be a software engineer? If not, what professions won't yet be automated? These are just a few issues that need to be considered when trying to answer the posed question, but even so, resolving it requires thorough knowledge on many topics. And yet, there are many more important questions!
This example shows that reason turns out to be ineffective in matters such as predicting the long-term future. It's simply too complex an issue, based on too many variables, for anyone—not to mention the average person—to resolve systematically, accurately, and in a way that satisfies curiosity.
These reflections came to me in connection with my current reading of Tolstoy's War and Peace. This novel takes place during the Napoleonic Wars, and one of the characters it discusses is Mikhail Kutuzov, the commander-in-chief of the Russian army during the French invasion of Russia in 1812. Prince Andrei—one of the main characters of this great novel—described Kutuzov's leadership and philosophy of conducting war by noting that Kutuzov relied less on individual initiative and reasoned planning, and more on patiently observing events unfold. He believed that Kutuzov wouldn't introduce anything of his own or undertake new ventures but would listen to everything, remember everything, and place everything in its proper context. By not interfering unnecessarily, he allowed beneficial developments to occur and prevented harmful ones. Kutuzov understood that there was a stronger force at play, and by acknowledging it, he could refrain from imposing his personal will directed elsewhere.
This passage shows that Kutuzov—at least in Tolstoy's interpretation—understood that conducting war is an extremely complex process, which additionally takes place under conditions of enormous uncertainty (the fog of war). Moreover, in the 19th century, orders and reports were transmitted by horse, and therefore slowly and ineffectively. In these conditions, reason has limited application because the data it operates on is incorrect, the situation changes by the time a report is received or orders are delivered, and above all, it's impossible to accurately assess the consequences of most decisions due to the complexity of the situation, where factors like enemy movements, geography, weather, chance, and soldiers' morale play roles.
Therefore, in the conditions of conducting war, reason has limited application—it may provide answers in some situations, but in others, it only gives the illusory conviction of one's ability to influence the course of events. Kutuzov understood that in a war of attrition, Russia was in a much better position than Napoleon's forces, and he stopped his reasoning at that conclusion. He decided to be patient and play for time, while ensuring that significant mistakes were not made. And he was right—the war ended as he had predicted.
The difficulty associated with metaphysics is that we have very little information about metareality, and it's never direct—we always have to infer it from something else. This work can only be done by reason, but it's not an ideal application for it, precisely because of the small amount of information and its uncertainty and indirectness.
Moreover, we don't really know if reason is the proper tool for discovering metareality. It is the only tool we possess, but it's not impossible that, in reality, it has no application and we only delude ourselves when we think we're making progress. One must always remember this possibility. Therefore, if someone maintains that reason is the proper tool, they should solidly justify why they think so.
Sponsored by: Wiadomości giełdowe GPW