The Light of Reason versus the Haze of Rationalization

Though in common parlance the words reasoning and rationalization are often used interchangeably, there exist subtle but nonetheless highly important distinctions between them. Merely understanding the distinguishing criteria can enable one to become a better thinker, debater, advocate, and arbiter. To my mind, this is due to at least the following reasons:

1. the correct usage of a word backed by an accurate understanding of its etymological denotation and semantic connotation allows for a level of precision of thought that would not be possible otherwise;
2. he who can delineate the contours of these two separate entities is better equipped to parse one’s interlocutor’s rationalizations from reasoning and then proceed to discredit the rationalizations; and
3. most importantly (and probably a most difficult thing to do), one can identify instances of one’s own rationalizing and attempt to resist the temptation to base one’s beliefs upon rationalizations.

The importance of having a technical understanding of the words we use is such that, case in point, without an adequate linguistic understanding it would be almost impossible for one to take the practical steps constituting items 2 and 3 above.

That said, let’s compare and contrast the definitions of these two words as provided by the New Oxford American Dictionary (third edition):

Reasoning: the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way. 

Rationalize: attempt to explain or justify (one’s own or another’s behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

The successive comparison above reveals that while both forms of thinking involve logic, rationalizing, unlike reasoning, necessarily involves its misuse. The two modes of thought can be syllogistically represented in the following oversimplified forms:                                       

Reasoning

    Appropriate, valid, or relevant premise

+ Appropriate, valid, or relevant premise

= Reasoned conclusion_________­___

Rationalization

    Inappropriate, invalid, or irrelevant premise

+ inappropriate, invalid, or irrelevant premise

= Rationalization or rationalized conclusion__

Note that the above representations should in no way be taken to mean that reasoning, as opposed to rationalizing, is an error-free mode of thought. In fact, in practice, reasoning, just as rationalizing, frequently involves using erroneous premises to the production of erroneous conclusions; however, that is a discussion for a different blog. The main point to absorb for purposes of the discussion at-hand is that the quality that makes reasoning different from rationalizing is the thinker’s objective regarding the use (or misuse) of logic. To wit, when it comes to reasoning, the thinker’s conscious and unconscious objective is typically the proper use of logic. On the other hand, rationalizing typically involves an unconscious (and perhaps even a conscious) objective to misuse logic to a self-serving end. For example, in the formulation of a conclusion within a particular context, rationalizing may involve the selection of erroneous premises due to a strong emotional desire to avoid unpleasant facts. As such, there is an inherent intellectual dishonesty at the core of rationalizing that does not exist at the core of reasoning.

If one is to be a good thinker then one must obviously avoid rationalizing in favor of reasoning as much as consciously possible. Good, cogent thinking involves reasoning, not rationalizing. The process of reasoning attempts to employ premises and produce conclusions based on how things are whereas the process of rationalizing attempts to employ premises and produce conclusions based on how one wishes things to be. Put simply, reasoning is based on how things are; rationalizing is based on how one wishes things to be.