What is rational?
From Unfocusgroup.org
In the modern world, a lot of emphasis is placed on the idea of "rationality". But I question the concept.
The idea of logic and rationale is a relatively recent one, and has been defined and refined by philosophers throughout history. But the human mind is an animal one that precedes history. And I would argue that the entire process of thinking starts with the emotions.
Most of the time, when we think, we initially start with an emotional idea, a feeling. We can then sanity-check the idea against our own learned sense of logic and rationale, and discard any ideas that conflict too heavily with other, more well-established ideas (these ideas may be either well-established in society, or in our own minds - the principle is the same).
In other words, we get a gut-feeling first, and then rationalise it later.
The basis rarely ever originates from "rationale".
There are exceptions to this. Results can fall out of a mathematical equation, for example. But most of the time, even in the sciences, one starts with a gut-feeling hypothesis that can then be verified scientifically - either empirically or through the use of logic. But one must not think that this process is "logical" throughout. It's not the way that our brains work!
(Brendan)
The problem with the piece above is that it attempts to provide us with "reasons" for believing what the writer wants us to persuade us to believe, viz, that there is really no such thing as having "good reasons" for believing anything. However, if he is right and all beliefs are just "rationalisations" of gut feelings after the event and never sound reasons - never the real reasons - then that must be true of what he has written above. All he has given us then is some kind of a rationalisation of a feeling he has (by his own admission). So what are his "real" reason? What is the content of his rationalisation? for he tells us that all beliefs, including his own are mere rationalionalisation. Perhaps he is fearful of the effort of having to think carefully and rationally. Perhaps he just wants to rubbish everyone else's views so he doesn't have to bother meeting their challenge.
One thing is certain tho - you can't use a rational argument to undermine rational argument. It's like a man sitting in a tree and sawing off the branch he is sitting on!
(X)
(I've tagged my first post, and the subsequent reply - feel free to change the tag X)
Ok good argument X - I guess I will need to explain further. There is a lot to say that will be covered in future articles.
I agree that this argument should be used with caution. It would be ridiculous to state that all ideas are equally valid. However, there are many cases where new ideas are seen as "irrational" because they appear to contradict traditional beliefs and sensibilities. I would argue that these ideas are no less rational than their predecessors; rather, they do not follow from established ideas. So it's hard for most people to understand the thought process that is behind them.
In addition, the worldview of the establishment in any discipline is effectively more than just factual knowledge. It is also a collection of intuitions about which directions are likely to be fruitful for further investigation, and which are not. The problems come when institutions lose their sense of self-awareness, and become closed to new ideas.
Of course it's also possible for institutions to be so open-minded as to be vacuous, so it's hard to get the balance right. I believe that open forums for debate are a key tool in refining new ideas, which is why I founded the Unfocus Group... so hopefully we will see some new thinking emerge. New ideas need to be given a chance!
(Brendan)
Back to Humans
