From the point
of view of knowledge properly so-called, reasoning is like the groping of
a blind man, with the difference that — by removing obstacles —
it may bring about a clearing of vision; it is blind and groping due to its
indirect and discursive nature, but not necessarily in its function, for it
may be no more than the description —or verbalization — of a vision
which one possesses a priori, and in this case, it is not the mind that is
groping, but the language. If we compare reasoning to a groping, it is in
the sense that it is not a vision, and not in order to deny its capacity of
adequation and exploration; it is a means of knowledge, but this means is
mediate and fragmentary, like the sense of touch, which enables a blind man
to find his way and even to
feel the heat of the sun, but not to see.(1)
1. It is said that angels do not possess reason since they have vision of causes and consequences, which obviously does not signify an infirmity.
If on the one hand reasoning can give rise to—but not produce —
intellection and if on the other hand intellection is necessarily expressed
by reasoning, a third combination is also possible, but it is abnormal and
abusive; namely the temptation to support a real intellection by aberrant
reasoning; either because the intellection does not operate in all domains
on account of some blind spot in the mind or character, or because religious
emotivity involves the thought towards solutions stemming from expediency,
given that faith is inclined to allow, even if only subconsciously, that “the
end sanctifies the means.