In this essay I am going to focus mainly on the philosophers David Hume and John Locke. But, first I would like to give a brief explanation of what we conceive of as reason. The following definition is taken from Merriam-Webster�s online dictionary. � 2 a (1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways: INTELLIGENCE (2): proper exercise of the mind.� From this it shows that reason is the way in which our minds work, the process of reaching a conclusion based upon a function that is applied to information.

Reason is a difficult word for us to understand fully, because it appears to be an internal function of our mind. People often associate reason with the solving of mathematical or logical tasks, but it is not just confined to those realms, reason governs the way in which we think and act upon ideas. It is of great importance in the realms of philosophy to understand the way in which reason works. If we can understand the processes that we go through when we use reason then we can learn more about the very nature of our being.

First I am going to try and give an account of Hume�s views on the subject, I am mainly going to be referring to his �An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding�. Hume believes that we achieve decisions by reference to experience. He tries to explain that there are three different types of connections between ideas, resemblance, contiguity and the final, and in my eyes the most important connection is that of cause & effect.

Resemblance would be the connection that our mind would make if we saw a picture, and this would lead us to think of the original painting. Contiguity would be the connection that our mind would make if we thought of an apartment in a building, which would lead to us thinking of other apartments in the building. Cause & Effect would be the connection that we would make if we thought of a wound, and we would then think of the pain that it would cause. I do feel however that Hume should have described the three connections in more detail, as there does seem to room for confusion. For example if we looked at a picture of an apartment, would reason conjure up the idea of the original or the idea of the other apartments in the building?

He does however further his claims by saying that �All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact.� (Hume, Enquiry, 4.1). Relations of Ideas are based on the sciences, algebra, geometry and any other conclusion that we make that is intuitively or demonstratively certain. For example, Hume says that the fact that three times five is equal to half of thirty is a relation of ideas, and it is not possible for it to equal anything different. Matters of Fact on the other hand are not certain, the opposite of any matter of fact is possible. Hume uses the example of the sun, he says that it is a matter of fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it is entirely plausible that the sun will not in fact rise.

I believe that one of the most important aspects of Hume�s work that is relevant to this topic is his idea of necessary connection. This is where he talks about how ideas are related to one another. For example if there was a volcanic eruption, we should be able to reason from this that it would cause a tidal wave. But we should be able to do this instantaneously and without any thought. The thought of an eruption should be linked to tidal wave like brothers are linked to the idea of male, yet this is not the case, so what can we gain from the idea of necessary connection?

One of the essential underlying concepts in the idea of necessary connection is that of inference. Hume believes like many philosophers that we learn from experience, and we then infer from these experiences. For example Hume uses the example of bread. If a man eats bread, and finds that it is nourishing, he will then use reason to infer from this, that if he found some other bread then it would also posses the same nourishing faculties. But, Hume believed that we could never be sure of necessary connection, because we cannot perceive it with our senses. At first this seems to pose problems because it means that we can never be sure of the consequences of a cause. But, I feel that this shows how strong reason is. For if we can never be absolutely sure of consequences then we should be wrong frequently. But this is not the case, as you probably know from experience that what we expect occurs more often than not; this implies that the relations and the reason that we use between these relations are exceptionally strong.

According to Hume there are two types of reasoning that we use, the first is demonstrative and the second is factual. Demonstrative reasoning is where the ideas that are linked can be demonstrated to be true, for example it can be demonstrated that 2+2=4, whereas factual ideas such as the sun rising tomorrow cannot be demonstrated until the event occurs.

Hume however did have some problems with reason; he sometimes seems to attribute some of our reasoning faculties to those of to those of instincts.

�Experimental reasoning itself, which we posses in common with beasts, and on which the whole conduct of life depends, is nothing but a species of instinct or mechanical power, that acts in us unknown to ourselves;� Hume, Enquiry 9.6

This however seems to me to be part of reasoning. The fact that some types of reason comes to us without any thought, like a bird incubating an egg, is no reason for it to be discarded. Hume calls this experimental reasoning, although he seems to say that it is not actually reason, just instincts. I believe that we are born with our reasoning abilities, and no matter how trivial they are, such reason telling �a man to avoid the fire�� I believe that although they may be thought of as instincts, they still use the same faculties and processes as reason, and they are based on previous experience such as fire hurts, so I believe them to be no less part of reason than any other.

I would now like to discuss the views of the famous philosopher, John Locke. Locke�s views on reason are very similar to those of Hume. He also believes that all the ideas that we get are from our senses. Locke says that we are born with the processing capabilities that enable us to use reason, but all the information that is acted upon is gained via the senses. He believes that what our mind is is a conglomeration of ideas, and reason is the joining of these ideas. For example reason tells us that a vixen is a female fox. Locke tells us that this is because the idea of vixen contains both the ideas of fox and female.

By reason Locke means: - i) An inquiry into what things we know with certainty. ii) An investigation into things that we accept, although it is only probable and not certain. Reason processes data to form knowledge, if the link between two or more ideas �agree� with each other then he says we have demonstration, but if they do not agree then he says that reason points us in the direction of what is most probable.

�For as reason perceives the necessary and indubitable connexion of all ideas or proofs one to another, in each step of any demonstration that produces knowledge: so it likewise perceives the probable connexion of all the ideas or proofs one to another, in every step of a discourse to which it will think assent due.� Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Ch 17 Section 2.

The most important view of Locke�s in my eyes is to be found in the way in which he uses reason to join the ideas. The way I understand it is that our ideas form a chain, and if we want to use reason to infer from past experience, then we search along the string of ideas and find a similar one. By a similar idea I mean an idea that bears a resemblance to the present one either in the situation or in the underlying concepts e.g. inferring from an experience that involved water being able to travel upwards when in a vacuum to an experience where we need to get petrol out of a petrol tank.

We seem to search through our ideas, albeit subconsciously, to find an idea that seems to have probability on our side. I find that to understand Locke it is best to use a computer analogy. If we imagine our ideas as a sequential data store such as a data tape (although Locke says that it must not be contained in anything like a bucket, I am just going to say that the ideas are contained in our brain) and reason as a program that by utilising the brain as a cpu operates on our ideas and gives us the outcome that is most probable or reasonable. This shows the importance of reason, as without it our mind would just be a pool of ideas with nothing to link them in any way shape or form.

Locke also believed that there were two different types of ideas that our mind uses, those of simple and complex ideas. Simple ideas are those that can not be broken down any further, for example the idea of blue can not be described in any other terms than the fact that it is blue. Complex ideas are those that are made up of simple ideas, like vixen being the joining of the ideas of fox and female. Simple ideas are derived solely from perception, whereas as I have said, complex ideas need to be linked to each other, so this involves reflection. In understanding his views on ideas I like to use the idea of mental atoms. A simple idea would be an atom, and when reason connects this atom with others of its type, it becomes a molecule, or an idea made of two or more ideas.

Locke seems to have been able to explain his views clearly although there are still problems with his views. He views reason as a faculty of the mind, and it is this that �sees� our ideas and operates on them. This raises the problem of the �homunculus�, this is the idea that there seems to be a small person in our head that looks at our ideas, but is there another man inside the head of this man performing the same task?

It is virtually impossible for a philosopher to disregard the topic of reason, because it allows them to formulate their ideas. Descartes used reason alone to prove one of the most well known statements in philosophy, namely the cogito. �I think, therefore I am�. This statement uses the idea of Descartes as a thinking individual, and reason connects the idea with the idea that for something to think it must exist.

Descartes made a mistake, namely that he did not believe that animals posses the powers to use reason. However if we look at animals such as primates, then it becomes evident that they do posses reasoning capabilities. There have been numerous programs and writings on primates that can communicate and solve simple tasks, such as assembling blocks to access food, and I believe that this shows the use of reason. This is because the animal knows that there is food there, and uses knowledge gained from experience so that they are able to get the food. Hume however believed that we share many things with animals, and one of these is the capability to infer from past experience. When discussing this he says

�Animals, as well as men, learn many things from experience, and infer� the animal infers some act beyond what immediately strikes his senses; and this inference is altogether founded on past experience.� Hume, Enquiry 9.1-4.

This however is not the same as using reason he says, but I feel that as I have already said, some animals are capable of using reason.

Reason seems to be an integral part of being a rational thinking being. As I have shown there are two main uses of reason, the first is what I call deduction and the second I shall call inference. The main role of deduction is what Hume calls relations of ideas, this involves mathematics and logic, this is where reason connects ideas that are purely mental and cannot be wrong. For example we deduce from (9*10)*3 that the answer is 270. The main role of inference is what Hume would call Matters of Fact; this is where we infer from past experience onto future events. For example we infer from the fact that striking a pool ball with a cue produces motion on one occasion to the conclusion that it will do so next time. I view deduction as having higher reasoning values to that of inference, as this seems to be present in humans alone, but this does not exclude reason from animals, it proves facts in a logical manner, whereas inference only suggests what has the highest probability.

I have often discussed causality in my arguments as I feel that it is of great importance to reason itself, although there are still doubts in the realms of causality, some people believe that we can never be sure of effects, such as Hume. I take reason to be an innate ability, and it performs functions on ideas that we gain from experience. My views are very similar to those of Locke and Hume, but I like to think as I have already said that it is not just humans that posses the capabilities to use reason. I think that the best way to understand reason is to use the example I used in my discussion of Locke. If we look at reason as a program that interprets data to form knowledge, I think that this will allow us in the future to further our understanding of reason in a more cognitive way, but until then I believe that the best way is to carry on the traditions of the like of Locke and Hume.

Bibliography David Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Oxford Philosophical Texts. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, @http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Locke/echu/ Merriam-Webster�s online dictionary http://www.m-w.com/