Examining Our Relationship

The English word “reason” originates from the Latin ratio. Today, people use it to talk about the quantitative relation between two amounts. But for the Romans, the notion meant any kind of reckoning to be done. How do “this” and “that” relate? In some cases, the “this” is something simple. It could be my keyboard. The “that” might be my iPad or my hands. When “this” is a person, the “that” could be all other people, or even the world itself. It is all about relationships. That is the point. Reasoning inter-connects me to aspects of the world; with other folks; and even among the modes/parts of my own self.

Karl Jaspers was careful to distinguish between two forms of reasoning, or reckoning with relationships.

Intellection, or scientific reasoning (Verstand), calculates, orders, and explains finite things and their connections. It gives us science and technology, the realm of certainty and functional mastery.

Examination, or existential reason (Vernunft),moves differently. Rather than mastering objects, examining our situation opens us to relations that exceed calculation. Not the possession of knowledge but the movement of thought itself, a continual pointing-beyond that discloses freedom and transcendence.

Between these two modes of reasoning lies caring comprehension, or empathic understanding (Verstehen). This is not the neutral comprehension of scientific method. It is the fundamental act of positioning myself in relation to what confronts me. It involves putting myself into other experiences through imaginative variation. Comprehension as caring allows for taking-a-stand. Because of this, I must first take the existential stance that certain forms of reasoning are worth pursuing. This makes both intellection and examination possible. I cannot think without first committing myself to a way of thinking. This commitment is always already a form of having an opinion. It is taking-a-position within the world and thereby a seeing from my viewpoint (Weltenschaung).

If reasoning is about relating “this” and “that,” it reveals behaviors within relationships. When this happens, ethics becomes a reasoned behavior. It is a reckoning modality. It needs reason and should be reasonable. Ethics requires us to think about what it means to do “right” or “wrong.” We must also explore the fundamental connection between “guilt” and “innocence.” Moreover, there appears the need to discuss with my fellows how best to engage and exchange with each other. For Jaspers, examination only truly comes alive in communication. It happens when I encounter the other not as an object. Instead, I see them as a possibility becoming an actuality (Existenz)—a being who, like me, stands before transcendence, i.e. freedom. This encounter demands a prior comprehension. I must care enough to take a stand. The other possesses the capacity for liberation. They are not merely a pattern to be decoded by me. Ethics goes beyond just following rules. It is about being open to dialogue. It involves orienting myself toward what lies beyond me.

Here I encounter something curious. Most reasoning does not happen through the solid ground of certainty. Instead, it occurs through what Jaspers describes as suspension: hovering over or even being adrift nearby (Schweben) a phenomenon. This dangling quality keeps possibility open by extending the area of consideration. Being in-suspense is not a flaw. It is the very motion of examination itself. It is the refusal to reduce ambiguity to closure. It is the capacity to dwell at the limit of understanding without collapsing it into false certainty. Suspension happens because of a comprehensive act of care. I must first take the existential stand. Ambiguity itself is philosophically creative rather than a problem to be solved. This commitment turns intellectual confusion into existential examination. It is the type of active testing suggested by the Latin exāmen. It involves a driving-out through sustained inquiry. This approach reveals instead of resolves.

Jaspers understood that consciousness-at-large (Bewusstsein) must be kept open. It is the field of subject/object awareness itself. It should not become static or biased because of totalizing concepts. Such closure is the essence of ideology. He emphasizes the importance of facing ultimate situations like death, struggle, and suffering. He also mentions guilt as previously introduced. These are the margins of the human condition wherein intellection falters and certainty dissolves. At these thresholds, examination discloses itself and sustains me in-suspense. Ideology would rush to close down the moment by imposing some dogmatic certainty. Intellection would reduce the moment only to what fits material explications. By being existentially resolute, I supersede the need to find certified resolutions. But to sustain the uncertainty requires a continued act of comprehension—I must repeatedly remind myself to how these limit-situations are revelatory rather than merely obstacles to overcome.

Totalizing frameworks—whether political dogma or cultural norms—foreclose possibilities by declaring one actuality to be the only reality. For example: Straight equals normal, queer equals abnormal. Here reckoning collapses into rationalization. Examination resists this collapse. It holds open the suspended space where communication and freedom can continue. This includes frank speech with friends. This resistance is grounded in a fundamental comprehension that commits to uncertainty as philosophically necessary rather than practically inconvenient.

Drifting alongside AI

I hover at the junction of natural and artificial reckoning. I am suspended between old forms of human reasoning and new technological mediations of thought. AI systems, by design, exhibit a bias toward certainty. Their operations rely on probability distributions that must intersect in order to function. Intellection thrives here: the calculative mastery of data, classification, and prediction. But existential reason’s element is ambiguity, and it elucidates this ambiguity rather than explaining it away.

This is why an AI, no matter how sophisticated its pattern recognition, remains bound to intellection. It may simulate coherence, but it cannot participate by hovering-over. It cannot perform the prior act of intersubjective care that makes suspension possible. An AI cannot take a stand regarding the value of ambiguity. It cannot commit to the idea that uncertainty is revelatory. It does not see it as simply a computational problem requiring completion or junk data requiring rejection. The current Large Language Models are products of intellection. They cannot move in the existential way examination does. They dwell at the edge of the knowable. They open new relational horizons. They point toward liberation (transcendence).

If ethics is reasoned behavior, then for Jaspers it is less about rules. It is more about the courage to remain in-suspense (improvisation). Ethical life requires fidelity to ambiguity—to remain in loose suspension rather than forcing closure. This openness is what makes genuine encounter possible, both with other people and with transcendence itself. But this ethical drift depends upon carefully taking-a-stand that affirms ambiguity as the very condition of ethical possibility.

Our relation to AI may therefore be less about aligning its outputs to “human values”. It is more about guarding our own capacity for critical examination. This involves relational reflections that forestall premature closure. But more fundamentally, prolonged interaction with systems that cannot perform comprehension may erode our capacity to take a stand. It is important to maintain a stance in favor of creative uncertainty. I may lose not just my endurance for ambiguity. I might also lose my ability to commit existentially to ambiguity. This commitment is philosophically revelatory rather than practically inconvenient.

This makes examination a process for movement rather than a production of possessions. Hanging adrift at the edge of what can be known is not weakness. It is reason’s deepest strength as examination. This means refusing to reduce relation to objects. It also involves not reducing freedom to necessity or transcendence to system. But this liberatory suspension requires the prior commitment of comprehensive care. You must take a stand that being adrift can itself be a form of navigation. Being in suspense can be a form of progress.

The truth that examination discloses through suspension is not a propositional truth. It cannot be stored in a database or produced by a model. It is the truth of relation itself. It is the unfinished, fundamentally uncertain work of existing with others. We live in a world that always exceeds us. This relational truth emerges only through mutual acts of comprehensive care. Each participant takes a stand regarding the other’s capacity for transcendence. They do not treat others as patterns to be processed before moving on to the next operation.

If I can stay adrift in this productive uncertainty, I may make a discovery. My encounter with AI might teach me something about myself. It may also teach me something about humankind. We are not primarily problem-solvers or information producers. Instead, we are beings who can dwell with ambiguity, sustain dialogue, and remain open to transcendence. More precisely, humans can comprehend kindly. Humans take the existential stand that others, like ourselves, exceed the boundaries of any system meant to contain them. This capacity for committed openness, Jaspers would say, is the very heart of turning toward the ethical through existential reasoning.