Rationalism
Armondikov (Talk | contribs) m (added Category:High priority using HotCat) |
Armondikov (Talk | contribs) (→Rationalization and Rationalities according to post-modernism) |
||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
== Rationalization and Rationalities according to post-modernism== | == Rationalization and Rationalities according to post-modernism== | ||
| − | <blockquote>A handy summary for those who do not understand [[Bullshit|Post-Modernist-Speak]]: There are a lot of different world-views and none is better than the other; the idea that one ''might'' be better is merely a cultural construction, so all we have to do is deconstruct, change our culture and, ''voila'', [[creationism]] becomes perfectly reasonable. | + | <blockquote>''A handy summary for those who do not understand [[Bullshit|Post-Modernist-Speak]]: There are a lot of different world-views and none is better than the other; the idea that one ''might'' be better is merely a cultural construction, so all we have to do is deconstruct, change our culture and, ''voila'', [[creationism]] becomes perfectly reasonable.'' |
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
Revision as of 02:22, 11 December 2010
| Part of the series on |
|---|
| Philosophy of science |
| |
| Foundations |
|
| Method |
| Conclusions |
Rationalism is a philosophy in which a high regard is given to reason (specifically logic) and to empirical observation.
From the strict philosophical standpoint, rationalism is the view that all or most truth is deductive and a priori, deriving logically from a set of axioms gained by intuition or inherent knowledge.[1] However, the term is not very often used so strictly, so this form of rationalism is generally known as continental rationalism, as its original proponents, such as Rene Descartes, were largely situated in continental Europe.
The term is more commonly used to refer to a synthesis of continental rationalism with its former rival philosophy, empiricism. This looser rationalism holds that empirical observation is more useful than intuition for gaining one's starting axioms, but one can use deductive reasoning from these axioms just as well. The best embodiment of this way of gaining knowledge is the scientific method; hence, rationalists tend to give high regard to science, designating it as the primary or sole proper source of truth.
RationalWiki is devoted to this sort of rational analysis of empirical evidence to form conclusions; most RationalWiki editors are very skeptical of other ways of knowing.
Contents |
General use
The idea of being "rational" is distinct and broader than the philosophy of rationalism. To be "rational" is synonymous with a "sane" or "functional" way of thinking. If one is "rational," then in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.
The opposite term, "irrational," is used to signify someone who cannot or will not think clearly. If a thought or action is “irrational,” it signifies something that is not just incorrect, but perverse, insane, or beneath consideration.
Historical rationalism
Rationalism was first formulated in classical times by philosophers such as Socrates and Plato. Many of the Socratic dialogues would use a conversational process to work out logical inconsistencies in ideas that were held by contemporaries to be "common sense," such as the definition of "the good."
But at the time, virtually everyone — even the great philosophers — believed that various things were known by people inherently. Aside from a few schools of thought which suggested that nothing could ever be known as true, few thought to discard a priori beliefs and start from scratch with only that which was known to be true. Thus, at this point historical rationalism closely resembled the way philosophers still define the philosophy.
The 16th century philosopher Descartes, however, attempted to create a whole philosophy through pure reason in his Discourse on Method and its succeeding works: he began with the only thing of which he thought he could be certain, that there was an "I" that was thinking - often rendered in the Latin of cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am.") His process ushered in a new era in rationalism, concurrent with the greater Enlightenment; at that time the philosophy began to resemble modern empiricism more than its own ancient ancestor, especially during the era of Romanticism when Enlightenment ideas were challenged and sensory perception was given more of a hearing.
Loose use in the time since has led to the fuzzy state of the term today, particularly when combined with the similar but much broader notion of being "rational."
Rationalism vs Empiricism
Rationalism is often unwisely contrasted with empiricism. This latter philosophy emphasizes the use of the senses in discovering the nature of the world. But while rationalism instead emphasizes the role of reason and logic, these viewpoints are not necessarily contradictory to most people. Their most extreme formulations aside, most people who call themselves empiricists wouldn't say that they never engage in logical reasoning, and few rationalists deny that sensory data is also essential.
The most prominent distinguishing characteristic between these two philosophies is that strict empiricists reject all a priori truths, decrying any belief in innate knowledge or intuition.[1]
It is very important to note that the contemporary definitions of empiricism and rationalism are very different from their historical use, which tended to treat them both as synonyms. In fact, this tendency remains in casual conversation, and generally only people who study philosophy with any depth recognize a distinction.[2]
Means-ends rationalism
Another straightforward conception of rationality is that an individual acts rationally if they act in the way that, on reflection, they believe best suits achievement of their aims. This conception, naturally, gives rise to the common conception when “on reflection” it is believed that the aim of truth can best be achieved through factual analysis and the scientific method.
This approach, however, is problematic, as it denies the existence of any sort of objective logic independent of human perception. Many, on reflection, believe that astrology, Scientology, homeopathy and other ridiculous nonsense best suits achievement of their aims. If these people are to be held to be irrational, a new criterion must be put in the place of “on reflection”. Usually the criterion is modified such that the rational person must “reasonably believe” they have a methodology to achieve their aims, leaving question of what it means to “reasonably believe” that a methodology will achieve certain aims.[3]
Sanity and proper function
[4] Alvin Plantinga's concept of rationalism neatly distinguishes reason from "raving madness" by conceiving of reason as "not raving mad". Of course Plantinga has to give us a good idea of what is not "raving mad", which he does with his concept of "proper function". Just as a clock, functioning properly, is a reliable indicator of the time, human senses, functioning properly, are reliable indicators of the world. Acting in accordance with the proper function of our faculties is rational.
The problem of what constitutes function, and proper function at that, is more than a question of what our faculties do (a fast clock tells the incorrect time, but this is not its function). Both function and proper function have an element of what things should be doing. As should is a difficult concept to introduce in a mechanistic description of how things happen to be, Plantinga sources the "should", the "purpose" of our faculties in a concept of God.
Critical rationalism
Critical rationalism (© Karl Popper) differentiates from the above conceptions of rationality by rejecting any positive content in reason. “Reason”, critical rationalism holds, does not provide 'reasons': it does not give positive recommendations about what beliefs should be held. Reason operates negatively, restricting the beliefs that can be held. It does this through criticism, subjecting pre-adopted beliefs to tests in an effort to refute them.
Rationalization and Rationalities according to post-modernism
A handy summary for those who do not understand Post-Modernist-Speak: There are a lot of different world-views and none is better than the other; the idea that one might be better is merely a cultural construction, so all we have to do is deconstruct, change our culture and, voila, creationism becomes perfectly reasonable.
According to postmodernism, there is no such thing as rationality, there are only rationalities. The act of creating a rationality is called rationalization. It is the acceptance of one rationality as The Rationality that is at the basis of most misunderstanding. Social theory from Postcolonialism to Science Studies have picked up on this and used it to critique, analyze, or understand the world around them. The classic example is Max Weber's Spirit of Capitalism. Many things considered rational today are only the rationalization and modification of behavior towards a mode of production called capitalism. Another example is Christian Conservative "irrational" beliefs in creationism and the evidence they have gathered for it. These can be seen as rational in light of their rationality towards their beliefs in God. They have simply rationalized their thought and behavior towards Christian Conservative beliefs. Similarly, the authority given to Western science in Western society due to the belief that "scientist's rationality" is The Rationality has created a phenomenon in society where Western science is truth. Science itself must never regard itself as truth (see falsifiability and Karl Popper), but society's expectations of this have placed science in an unusual position with some unusual outside influences that do actually lead to less than ideal scientific behavior within science and cripple innovation (see Mario Biagioli).
This decentering of rationality is something most people are uncomfortable with, even those who critique the misuse of rationality. The feeling of this thought is a deep anomie, and it is reaction to anomie that may lead most people to adopt Fundamentalist and Conservative beliefs in order to provide themselves with an anchor. However fear of Rationality and its anomie need not be so. The ineffable slipperiness of Rationality (big 'R') is its saving grace. Nothing can ever define itself as Rationality, so it is the very act of the claim of rationality that makes something not Rational. Only through never accepting a position as truthful or rational, and only through constant discourse, can there be openness.
Where rationalism can fail
- Being right can seriously fail to charm people, and therefore to convince them. (Or to phrase it another way, when dealing with people, ethos and pathos are more useful than logos.)
- You can gain negative charisma and really piss people off.
- It's less likely to get you laid than carefully-applied stupidity.
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
- ↑ http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/Empiricism%20oct%20069.pdf
- ↑ Badly summarised from Plantinga, A. Warrant: The Current Debate. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1993. p132.
- ↑ Badly summarised from Plantinga, A. Warrant: The Current Debate. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1993. p134.