The Distinction Between Reason And Reasoning

Reason is not the same as reasoning.  Reason is logic, which is true because it could not be any other way.  Logical axioms have this characteristic of intrinsic veracity and other logical truths hinge on them.  An easy example of the former is that it cannot be true that nothing logically follows from anything else or that this necessity is not true, for then it is true by logical necessity in light of the alleged nature of reality that logic is false.  An example of the latter is that a man and woman being close friends does not mean either harbors sexual interest in the other, as this does not follow by necessity.  The latter is not self-evident although it too is true by necessity.  The former is self-evident because to even neglect, deny, or doubt it, one must inescapably rely on it.

In contrast, reasoning is the mental process by which a being relies on reason to obtain knowledge or contemplate some idea, even if they misuse reason and thus make assumptions (meaning they lack knowledge because they have believed on a basis other than proof) or ignore some logical truth.  All conscious beings performing any intentional mental activity reason in the sense of engaging in reasoning.  Only rationalists directly and intentionally comprehend logical necessities, identifying necessary truths without making any assumptions and thus enabling themselves to have true knowledge.  Intelligence is in reality nothing other than genuine rationality, not education, concentration, strong memory recall, or competence in something other than rationalistic philosophy.

Logical axioms are among the necessary truths of reason.  Indeed, they are the uttermost foundational truths because them being false would still require that they are true; they are inherently true in themselves, having no dependance on anything else.  Not even other logical necessities have this nature because they are themselves rooted in axioms.  All of them are still not made true by someone's perception, by agreement between individuals, because God decreed it so, or because of how the physical world "behaves."  They are true because logical axioms cannot be false without still being true.  The mental act of reasoning, which might or might not be in alignment with the objective necessary truths of reason, is of course different.  Without a conscious being's active thinking, there is no reasoning--no grasp of reason even if it is distorted and unrecognized by them--but logic itself is unaffected.

However, a person might use their misaligned reasoning to persuade themself that logical axioms are some sort of illusion or incapable of being known to be true or false.  The very fact that this is possible even though logic cannot be untrue is knowable simply from pure reason, for it does not follow from something being demonstrably, inherently true that a person will grasp it.  I have had a great multitude of encounters firsthand with the sheer, asinine unwillingness of many people to acknowledge the intrinsic veracity of the only thing in reality that is true in itself because it could not be any other way.

Such deluded fools, fools in the ultimate sense, are still dependent on both the objective laws of reason and on their mental reasoning even as they deny the former's real nature.  While reasoning can be erroneous, reason (logic) is not, but not because it is rooted in some greater or more foundational existent that holds this status of maximal metaphysical necessity instead.  Such a thing is impossible because logical axioms are supremely foundational because they are inherently true, so that anything else must be consistent with them to even be possible.  Neither the cosmos nor the uncaused cause is an exception to this.  Unlike reasoning, reason (the laws of logic) depends on nothing other than itself while the metaphysical possibility and epistemological verifiability of literally everything else is wholly dependent on it.