(If you are thinking, 'What the hell is he going on about? I only come here to read the anecdotes about the crazy people that drink in the pub," thanks for stopping by, but this isn't one of those weeks.)
Still here? Cool. Let's begin by defining some more terms.
Why, you might do very well ask, do we need a term like 'anti-rational' at all? Surely the opposite of 'rational' is 'irrational'?
As previously stated, a person who is rational rejects logically inconsistent ideas. A person who is irrational does not or cannot reject logically inconsistent ideas. An anti-rational person happily disseminates ideas with no regard for their consistency, logical or otherwise. The anti-rational person has no desire to establish truth (or at least eliminate falsehoods). They wilfully choose to ignore truth in favour of provoking an emotional reaction.
We are living through an age where anti-rationalist rhetoric is being used to gain political ground. In Europe, the last great age of anti-rational rhetoric was the 1930s and it culminated in events that led it to become rather unfashionable for quite some time.
We are living through an age where anti-rationalist rhetoric is being used to gain political ground. In Europe, the last great age of anti-rational rhetoric was the 1930s and it culminated in events that led it to become rather unfashionable for quite some time.
George Santayana's quote is apposite here: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The generation who fought Fascism in Europe are mostly too dead to give their great-grandchildren the clip round the ear they deserve for joining the English Defence League and Le Front National.
In his essay, The Ancestry of Fascism, Bertrand Russell describes three characteristics of reason:
- Reason relies on persuasion not force.
- Reason seeks to persuade by the use of arguments that the user himself finds completely valid.
- Reason values observation and induction over intuition.
You only have to look at the recent American election and the plebiscite on Britain leaving the European Union to see that the second and third characteristics have been abandoned in much political discourse. If President Donald Trump carries out his threats to the American Moslem population, then the first characteristic falls as well.
 |
| The Ancestry of Fascism is included in the collection In Praise of Idleness |
The Ancestry of Fascism makes for sobering reading. It was written in 1935 and presciently predicts both the Second World War and America's decisive involvement in its termination. Russell also points out that: "Rationalism and anti-rationalism have existed side by side since the beginning of Greek civilisation, and each, when it has seemed likely to become completely dominant, has always led, by reaction, to a new outburst of its opposite."
The latest anti-rationalist discourse is extremely dangerous at a time when the world needs to address the threats posed by anthropogenic climate change.
We are in dire need of an outbreak of rationalism.
No sir, this post is the problem with the world. This trafficking in the belief that those who disagree with me are simply not rational, while dressing it up in objective language to sound like some academic authority on the state of the world IS, to use your cleverly coined phrase, anti-rational. Voting for a person who you believe will advance your personal prospects further than the competing candidate is precisely rational, on the other hand.
ReplyDeleteI think the author is saying quite the opposite. He is saying that he would love for his opponents to have taken a rational if opposing position. As it is though, much of the current political climate (mostly right, some left) builds position and policy on non-rational, non-logical, unsound thinking. Historically, that kind of thing leads to some pretty horrible things (normally not until a majority of the people are suffering, which is not the case in the USA.)
DeleteDoes it occur to you that your answer to an essay on the dangers of non-rational behavior is a non-rational screed?
If your definition of rationality is the singular pursuit of self-interest, then yes. But sadly, that is usually a quickly self-defeating way of looking at the world. US vs. THEM is exciting to the emotions, but WE, together is the only script for long-term progress.
DeleteSatisfying the emotional side can be addictive. It just so happens we've gotten very good at satisfying the ego and the emotional needs of the people rather than logical/physical needs. Instead of building bridges we've built infotainment channels that pump us full of joy and rage and other strong emotions. We spend our time turning things into battles where the winner is a hero and the loser is an evil terrible person. It's less about facts and more about feelings.
DeleteAnti-rational is more like fully-emotional and in that kj, you are a perfect example. You know that need to shout “No sir, you are wrong”? That's anti-rational. “...dress it up in objective language...” and “cleverly coined phrase” are both emotionally charged. I read what you say as “you make us feel inadequate and we don't want to feel that way” which is understandable. But really what you mean to say at the end is “we vote for the person we feel will do us right” and that, is anti-rational.
Trick is if it's a boring conversation that hurts your head that's when you know it's very likely rational. Well, unless you're a complete nerd but even that can go super anti-rational when calls for sources become a shouting match.
We are emotional creatures =( =) =/
I think his argument stands. Honestly, there has been a strong trend toward a fashionable arrogance on the left that I find utterly disturbing as of late. To try and accuse the right of this exclusively is misplaced, particularly if you are attempting to state that the right is the more emotional side. Look at the flag burnings and the protests that occurred following the election. To try and judge those as anything but emotional shows the bias that has become so prevalent lately among the left.
DeleteThis isn't to say that the right remains blameless. A look at climate change is telling in the failings of the current right, but to absolve the left in doing so isn't just emotional, it's arrogant.
Could this perception of recent events not be due a conflation of empiricism and rationalism?
ReplyDeleteTwo opposing conclusions can be in a sense rational. Economics as a science may be rational, but it is not necessarily empirical. That is to say, one could come to two different sets of conclusions about the same data, and it would be difficult to empirically prove one version to be Correct.
Is an alternative interpretation anti-rational?
Nice read, sounds quite academic. However, your argument doesn't even apply. It's funny to see you state that there is a lack of rationalism in the world and you apply it to the American political system. I do admit Trump has said quite jarring and outright untrue things, but so has the other candidate. You pointed out they abandoned your second and third points, yet if you apply it like you did, both candidates would be at fault. Yet you had to take that jab at Trump. People aren't irrational, they are presented with a choice and they choose based on their self-interest. If people vote because they belief in a certain set of beliefs of that candidate, how is that irrational?
ReplyDeleteVoting based on values and morals is one thing. Voting based on information with no factual backing, and an unwillingness to listen to the truth IS irrational.
DeleteExamples please. The blog and comments are lacking in this respect, it's not just you above..
DeleteEmotion is the driver of all human action, rationality is a sophisticated tool invented/evolved to satisfy these emotional drives. Emotion is the only thing that gives us a reason to prefer one outcome over another. Rationality is always subordinate.
ReplyDeleteDo you think other animals are driven by emotion? Or is this just a human trait?
Delete"We are in dire need of an outbreak of rationalism."
ReplyDeleteOne can easily make the case that we are. The populace has rejected the irreconcilable position that a nation can simultaneously sustain a generous welfare system and open borders. They've rejected the notion of poorly vetted "refugees" from terrorist hotbeds in an age of frequent terrorist attacks and warnings of infiltrated refugee camps. They've rejected the concept of severe trade imbalances that have contributed to stagnating or lower standards of living for many Americans. The odd idea that racialist, identity politics can lead to racial harmony has also been dismissed. I could go on, but the point is made. What the author perceives to be irrational when viewed through the lens of his partisan bias is perfectly rational from the perspective of the tens of millions of Americans who reject his view.
What do you mean "they rejected?" 1.7M more people voted for the things you are listing than against them, if we're talking about America.
DeleteBanning Muslim immigration is the initiation of the use of force instead of persuasion and is therefore anti-rational. Every other government action is the initiation of the use of force instead of persuasion, but Mr. Rationalist does not label it anti-rational. Now tell me again how anti-rational people disseminate ideas without concern for consistency.
ReplyDeleteIt would be completely rational to euthanize defective babies since they are a drain on society.
ReplyDeleteJust saying...
Psh whatever
ReplyDeletePs best comment on here