Human Minds Thought Process - Term Paper Example

Rationality is something that exists within society, whether or not we actively realize it. It is part of the human mind’s thought process in understanding and interpreting what is around him. It is regarded as one’s interpretation of knowledge. And when one talks about knowledge, it is interpreted in different ways. Several factors affect this interpretation and there are two opposing approaches to rationality: the foundationalist and constructivist approach.

The foundationalist approach to rationality grounds its understanding of knowledge and the interpretation of knowledge on one’s basic beliefs. That’s why it is called foundationalist. It interprets knowledge according to one’s personal foundations, and how one is taught about things. These basic beliefs are treated as self-justifying meaning to say that it does not need any reason or explanation whatsoever to understand the said belief. This is used to understand other things as these reasons are the basic principles of how the human mind works. The foundationalist approach to rationality then is a more rigid structure of what is and what is not without needing to explain things further or whether to think that something can be interpreted in more ways than one. This is how it is different from the constructivist approach wherein this approach interprets rationality as something that can be viewed differently from one person to another, whether they are from the same or different cultures, or whether they had the same or different experiences. Its basis is upon one’s own personal interpretations and while interpreting and explaining things, it moves on to create new explanations that further open new roads and opportunities for thought processes. The constructivist approach to rationality is a more flexible way of understanding things, as the term implies it constructs explanations rather than ground them as what the foundationalist approach does.

With this, I can say that rationality can be perceived both ways (although this still is a more constructivist approach). We can use grounded beliefs in interpreting different things that need explanations, although there are some specific things that need to be interpreted depending on how one is raised. Evidently, this shows that good reasons are evidently true depending on how we try to explain things.

Classmate Todd’s interpretation of the foundationalist and constructivist approach to rationality allows us to see that both approaches can go hand-in-hand in understanding rationality. This is almost the same as my own view as it sees beliefs as grounded but upon one’s own personal truths. The only difference is that he sees the foundationalit approach to rationality as something that is universal or standard whereas I believe that the foundationalist approach seeks to explain things according to what has been grounded upon the individual’s mind, and this will always be affected by cultural and social biases.

Classmate Lynn’s interpretation of the foundationalist and constructivist approach to rationality is more or less similar to mine in that she understands the foundationalist approach to be a grounding of reasons or something that is rigid or structured, and the constructivist to be a social construct, something which is determined by one’s personal and cultural experiences. Although, I disagree with her view on foundationalism seeking to define things in an objective and universal manner as I believe that foundationalism thrives in its notion of self-evident truths that don’t need explanation. In this manner, there is no need to seek for universality since their beliefs are grounded upon the common knowledge and belief of humans.