As we move about the world, we develop a sense of the experience of moving in the world. There is a faculty of the mind we might call reason. Reason is not the same as rationality, we’ll get to rationality in a minute. It would be better to say that reason is observance of connections between things.
Being in the world over time, we develop reasonings about how we expect discrete & similar occurrences to occur.
One of the most basic, meta steps to this process is the development of realizing that certain paths of reasoning never work to form good models. The formalization of this is logic.
“Rationality” in singular, refers to some sort of measuring stick, an apparatus to hold information to for validation. Rationalities are context-dependent models that are formed via the constraint of reasoning by logic, and the biases that necessitated them in the first place.
That is to say, rationalities are more precise, segments of reason’s possibility space, in an applied context. Precision in moving about the world is highly beneficial, I doubt I need to express.
What I’m still trying to square is, the most base constraint on reasoning is the mythological understanding of the self in the world, but better said in reverse, the self’s understanding of the world.
Mythos over logos is the rule of the human mind. You can’t reason outside of the myth your very understanding of reality is built on, unless you change your myth. And there is no way of being in the world that is amythical.
The classic example is that a mind trained to desire a world that is certain, has a helluva hard time considering rationalities that have looser constraints.
to belabor, the scientific method is an absurdly powerful laser beam(rationality). It’s a highly engineered machine with low friction to use AND drives consistency in any process. An immaculate tool(friction reduce and consistency induce)
to parallel, the mind of a hardline evangelical is bound by a beautifully crafted mythos.
but to get caught in understanding the world through only one rationality is to be caught in a smaller mythos than I would personally consider. And it necessarily cannot, as a well-defined system, be all-encompassing. Rationalities are limited, that’s the exchange for certainty. I would think appreciation of a rationality should begin and end in the context to which it applies.
Or maybe I should say, the mythos is still grander, but your focus can be too narrow to even see how it is affecting you.
I was thinking more ab this last night, and perhaps “logic” should be split into two parts. A rationality that is the most common use of the word in a philo space, and a more broad thing that allows our mind to lock considerations into place and sieve reason.
Also, considering, mythos should be especially named, but is still itself a rationality? It just happens to be the most baseline one we operate on to filter the space this all fits in
Btw, the space I think, reasonspace, is perhaps translated better as a connection space. Reason connects things. Some connection patterns are better(logical filter), we generally only consider connections within our perception capability(mythos), and we can further refine (for benefit of consistency and surety) the space within mythos via consistent(read logical) frameworks (rationalities)