Reasoning

To Reason is to apply logic to thought. It is a process that should always be employed, for it leads to the best decisions being made—and thus, to the best possible outcomes.

To Reason, one must begin with something they hold to be True. From there, they must identify everything that must also be True in order for the original idea to stand. This is the foundation of Reasoning: identifying the web of required truths that uphold any given claim.

For example: I hold it True that "tomorrow the Sun will rise."

The first thing that must be True is the language itself—the words being used. As they are written in an existing language, and you can, hopefully, understand them, they are True in the sense that they successfully refer. Their semantic content is accessible. Words like "the", "will", and "rise" require no more than their definitions and our shared understanding to be held as True—they refer to human concepts and are thus logically valid, True by definition within the structure of language.

But the term "Sun" refers not merely to a concept, but to an actual Object—one whose Existence we must verify. Here we encounter our first complication: we verify the Sun’s existence through perception—sight and heat. However, the light and warmth we experience are delayed by approximately 8 minutes and 20 seconds due to the speed of light. In this sense, we never perceive the Sun as it is now, only as it was. Yet we accept this perceptual delay as sufficient, for we generally do not question the Sun's existence.

Then we come to the word "tomorrow". Unlike the Sun, “tomorrow” does not refer to an object but to a concept—the concept of the future. For “tomorrow” to be True, we must reach it. Yet when we do, it is no longer tomorrow—it has become today. Therefore, “tomorrow” cannot ever be verified as tomorrow; it remains forever out of reach. Hence, the sentence "tomorrow the Sun will rise" is not True in the strict logical sense—it is a prediction. And only when what we called “tomorrow” has arrived, and the Sun has risen, and 8 minutes and 20 seconds have passed to confirm it, can we retroactively say: I was right.

Thus, Reasoning has already begun, but it does not end here. Reasoning only concludes when one reaches Absolute Truth—that which is True by Logic alone, requiring no further assumptions. These are truths that cannot be made any more fundamental. We have achieved this already for words like “the,” “will,” and “rise”—they are purely linguistic forms, defined by human understanding, and thus True by construction. They are rooted in logic and concept alone.

This is the essence of Reasoning: to peel back the layers of any claim, tracing it to the foundational truths upon which it stands. Each statement, belief, or idea rests on prior conditions—assumptions, definitions, and structures that must themselves be examined. The process continues, layer by layer, until one arrives at what cannot be broken down further: absolute Truths—truths that are necessary, self-evident, or True by logic alone.

Ideally, Reasoning aims to reach these axiomatic points—truths that require no further justification because their necessity emerges from the very structure of logic. However, when we turn to the domain of Human Life and the empirical world, we encounter truths of a different kind. These are not purely logical but observational—dependent on experience and interpretation.

And it is here that the true skill of Reasoning reveals itself. To affirm what is True by definition—logical tautologies or formal identities—is not particularly difficult. What demands intellectual discipline is the examination of those truths that describe the existing world—truths that are entangled in perception, language, memory, and assumption. These are not given; they must be interrogated.

To Reason well, one must take everything they hold to be True about reality and ask: What must also be True for this to hold? For every point, there is a set of supporting conditions. And for each of those, more conditions. This recursive process continues until a full architecture of interdependent truths has been laid out.

From there, the Reasoner must test this structure for coherence. No two elements may contradict; every concept must fit within the system it belongs to. The more complex the pattern, the more rigorous the scrutiny required. For in a consistent worldview, no truth undermines another, and each part reinforces the whole.

Let us continue with the sentence: “tomorrow the Sun will rise.”

To affirm “tomorrow,” we must affirm today—that it exists, and that it can become a tomorrow. This requires that Existence itself be True. The Sun, likewise, presupposes more than just Existence. What is the Sun? A massive sphere of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion. Thus, to affirm the Sun, we must affirm Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy—in short, all of Natural Science. Even a simple sentence like “tomorrow the Sun will rise” implies the entire scaffolding of a Worldview.

To hold the Sun as True is to commit to an entire metaphysical and scientific structure—a worldview that is theoretical by nature. It is based not on Logic itself, but on observation, abstraction, and inference. And though this structure may never attain the status of absolute Truth, it must still be constructed using Reason and must be consistent with itself.

Finally, we arrive at the deeper point: our understanding of Existence can never be True in the absolute sense—it can only be coherent. Except for Logic, which is True by necessity, all else is subject to verification, interpretation, and assumption. And so, the ultimate Truth of Existence must be either assumed or chosen. We can verify only our own Existence—the reality of everything else, we must, at some level, decide for ourselves.

A triangle has four sides.

We can Reason this easily: it is False. While “triangle” and “four” may each be True in isolation—meaning they refer validly to concepts—in this context they contradict one another. A triangle, by definition, has three sides. For the sentence to be True, “four” would have to mean the same as “three”—but it does not. Therefore, the sentence fails the test of internal consistency. It is logically False.