Critique of reason

Critique of reason is the examination of the scope and limits of human understanding: what it can know with certainty, where it goes wrong, and how far it can reach without relying on other sources of knowledge. The phrase names both a philosophical method and a general attitude towards the capacity of reason.

The idea has ancient roots, since the sceptical tradition already pointed out that the senses and judgement are fallible. It gained central weight, however, as modern thought placed growing trust in reason as an instrument of knowledge. Questions about God, the soul and the meaning of life were often the ground on which the issue of whether reason is enough on its own was most sharply posed.

Those who defend or qualify the idea share a common point: reason is valuable, but it is not all-powerful. Pierre Charron held that both the senses and reason are fallible, so supernatural truths depend on revelation. Blaise Pascal considered that reason cannot reach the great questions by itself, and that the heart and faith have an order of their own which logic does not exhaust. Algazel, from within the Islamic tradition, argued that ultimate truths require, besides reason, revelation and inner experience. Joseph de Maistre pushed the critique further, claiming that human reason cannot pretend to grasp the divine order, since the original perfection was lost through sin.

There is also a critique of a different kind. María Zambrano argued that modernity had reduced knowledge to what can be calculated, leaving out inner experience, dreams and other forms of understanding. In this sense the critique does not deny reason, but calls for a broader conception of it.

The debate remains open today: it is discussed whether the limits of reason are epistemic, moral or cultural, and how far they can be fixed without sliding into a scepticism that contradicts itself.