Since the Enlightenment we have take irrationality to be a bad thing.
We often forget that people were rational before the Enlightenment and often supremely so. What the Enlightenment changed was our attitudes towards what counts as rationality. It tells us that someone who has not sat down and critically analyzed their beliefs isn't really rational. Enlightenment rationalism pretends that such critical analysis will always make our beliefs better.
The problem with is, as Wittgenstein once brilliantly quipped, is that sitting down to use your mind to analyze what's in your mind is like buying a second copy of the newspaper to see if the first one is accurate.
This is a point we miss over and over again. The next time you see someone explaining that human beings are susceptible to all sorts of irrational desires and forces, ask them why they are so smart that they can see this.
I mention this now because coming up sometime here will be an extended piece about some current political arguments about irrationality. Because progressives seem to be in a considerably weaker position than they were just two years ago, many progressives are trying to figure out why. Much of their analysis turns out to be a suggestion that voters are irrational.
Before I get into the content, I think we should just step back and ponder that in the the abstract for a while.
Suppose I am trying to convince you to support a cause. I spend hours telling you what a good cause it is and trying to convince you that even in these tough times you can and should spare a little effort and money. Despite my efforts, you are not convinced.
Okay, I go away to lick my wounds and think about it and I come back with my analysis of what went wrong. Here it is "My arguments failed to convince you because you are not susceptible to rational argument."
I mean think about that. I'm sure you can see the problem here. The irony is, or ought to be, painful. If I said something like that it would reveal a real lack of self awareness and ability to be self critical. You would say, and rightly so, "Hey Jules, has it ever occurred to you that your arguments just aren't very good or that this charity is not, in fact, the good cause you take it to be?"
Jules, with your permission, I'd like to copy and post this or provide a link to it on the site where I first saw the Monbiot article. Aside from myself and two other people, there hasn't been much reaction at all to that article--pro or con--much to my surprise. I think a link to this piece would be better if I can figure out how to do it, so you can get credit and also introduce others to your site.
ReplyDeleteSorry to be so long on this; I was out much of the day.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, yes, do go ahead and we'll hope we don't start a flame war.
Thanks, I copied the Irrationality piece and also forwarded the link to your site. Its a private AoM group with not much activity, except for lengthy mini auto-bios some of the members are writing that are getting ridiculous and I have no intention of doing. I'm more interested in peoples' ideas than knowing every insignificant detail of their lives. I'm hoping that this will prompt some meaningful discussion.
ReplyDeleteYour post elicited a couple of interesting responses, not at all hostile, very insightful. One pointed out that we don't always act rationally even when we think we are.
ReplyDeleteThanks. My concern was more that I didn't want to draw a partisan political debate here. That's not my style. I suspect I could have a lot more readers if I started political blogging but I just don't want to do that.
ReplyDeleteI have a possible comment on the Monbiot piece in the works by the way, I just want to think it through a bit.
I look forward to reading it, I've been thinking more about it also.
ReplyDelete