If we accept that reality is so complex that it is not fully
susceptible to rational analysis, then what is the rational person to do?
It seems to me that we have two approaches to the problem,
one rational and one irrational.
The first, irrational approach is to ignore the limits of
rationality by adopting a covert axiom that reality is entirely
accessible to rational analysis. We might call this the over-rational position.
The second, more rational approach is to see treat first
approach as irrational. We might call this the nuanced rational position.
It isn’t difficult to see the value of the nuanced approach
when we consider what rationalism has delivered, from antibiotics to traffic lights, from the theory of evolution to nuclear weapons, from clean
water to chemical warfare, from money to taxes.
It’s a mix of solid benefits, mixed benefits and things we might be better
off without. Rationality has not been a universal blessing.
However, an over-rational approach to political and social issues has also delivered numerous malign political inventions. In particular, via impeccable chains of reasoning, it has delivered endless state interference in all aspects of our lives.
By the way, I originally wrote almost
all aspects of our lives, but deleted the word almost to better represent a complex but generally threatening reality. Not quite as accurate if one is over-rational, but possibly more apt if one has a nuanced view of these things, being concerned to highlight a genuine threat to rationality itself.
This highly pervasive example of over-rational policy-making derives from an official presumption that we should all live our
lives in complete safety, free from all anxieties, risks, threats, discomfort, illness and even personal
responsibility.
Surely such nonsense is a result of a narrow, over-rational calculation, a desire to maximise the mechanical security of human life? Surely it is being done at the expense of everything we once valued, from personal freedom to spiritual consolations, from a personal philosophy to the simple joy of living?
Surely such nonsense is a result of a narrow, over-rational calculation, a desire to maximise the mechanical security of human life? Surely it is being done at the expense of everything we once valued, from personal freedom to spiritual consolations, from a personal philosophy to the simple joy of living?
Yet many of the modern world’s problems seem to be due to over-rational chains of reasoning without a single mitigating nuance to stem the fanatical, controlling tide.
In fact many would-be rationalists appear to be part of some kind of rational crusade where the enemy is anyone who
might possibly be sceptical of their brand of over-rational dictatorship. Especially unwelcome are those naughty souls who toss nuance-bombs into their neatly painted trenches.
Their perceived enemies are legion, from religious believers to
environmental sceptics, but essentially it is any form of scepticism they deplore with a
fanatical hatred which at times seems to verge on madness.
Not quite madness perhaps, but there does appear to be something a little unhinged about over-rational folk. Something excessive and lacking in humility and humanity. Lacking common sense too, but we never had a surplus of that.
Not quite madness perhaps, but there does appear to be something a little unhinged about over-rational folk. Something excessive and lacking in humility and humanity. Lacking common sense too, but we never had a surplus of that.
The real danger to our very concept of rational thought is the incessant tendency of the
state to sponsor over-rational solutions to all problems. Even where their
supposed solutions are nothing but fantasies – clouds of over-rational nonsense worked out in exact detail by narrow, blinkered and fanatically over-rational minds.
3 comments:
Theorie und praxis - it's a dialectic. Each modifies the other continually.
The first, irrational approach is to ignore the limits of rationality by adopting a covert axiom that reality is entirely accessible to rational analysis. We might call this the over-rational position.
The second, more rational approach is to see treat first approach as irrational. We might call this the nuanced rational position.
Now that does my head in, AKH, on a Friday afternoon.
Sackers - it should and often does eventually, but when powerful interests are involved the dialectic can be corrupt.
James - mine too. Good job I wrote it on Thursday (:
Post a Comment