Essay:The Revolt Against Reason

Introduction

Moderation: The quality of doing something between reasonable limits.

When an organization is founded, or based, upon contradictory principles, then one is likely to see paradoxes arise in the course of ordinary events. The pertinent family of examples in our case, here at Rationalwiki, involves the conflicts between science and politics. While politics itself may be an object of scientific study, it is in no account described to the satisfaction of anyone familiar with the characteristics of a scientifically treated topic: intelligible, quantifiable, coherent, often periodic in nature, and in some respect predictable. If the subject is abstract then it is commonplace to encounter problems arising from the fallacy of ambiguity, especially through equivocation. The definition of moderation I have chosen has the defect of relying on the reader's knowledge of what may be reasonable. And, so here we are already offroad from any scientific objective, unless we examine the concept of "reasonable limits." I find that, upon completion of such a consideration, limits can only be set when political motivations and their consequent ideologies are in focus and well defined. This leads us into a circle of arguments that are bounded and similar to the extent that they describe human experience. We are led to acknowledge that someone has to be authorized to explain the meaning of "reasonable limits," without referring to any implicit ideology.

The main problem in defining an ethical form of moderation involves delimiting what is considered reasonable. To do this we cannot simply appeal to the specifications of a demographic category with no clear ideological identity. Gender, for example, has no political integrity, despite being a characteristic of human nature; the characteristic of being a "person of color" is also unadorned by any uniform political concept. Yet these groups are brought into political controversies, often as a matter of course, in service to political parties. Political party affiliation may include groups that are indifferent to one another. Cultural conservatism is very common among some groups and they are often likely to reject a modern view of non-traditional gender variance or competition from another cultural ethos such as Islam in competition with Enlightenment Idealism. We recognize that distinct groups may have distinct values divergent from others, or even lack sufficient characteristics to enable a coherent understanding of them to become generally known. RationalWiki can be a Procrustean bed leading users to despair the possibility of progress. This, I propose, is at least in part due to a continuing absence of a coherent episteme for moderation. It is important to realize that the temper of rationality does not meet its opposite in the form of irrationality, but as anti-rationality. This amounts to the intentional setting aside of rational arguments for reasons of convenience.

The Revolt against reason

The analytic philosophers tell us that "the revolt against reason began as the revolt against reasoning." We can not be said to be rational without some idea of what it means to reason. The character of reason has been described by Russell as depending upon three attributes:

"In the first place, it relies upon persuasion rather than force; in the second place, it seeks to persuade by means of arguments which the man who uses them believes to be completely valid; and in the third place, in forming opinions, it uses observation and induction as much as possible and intuition as little as possible. The first of these rules out the Inquisition; the second rules out such methods as those of British war propaganda, which Hitler praises on the ground that propaganda ‘must sink its mental elevation deeper in proportion to the numbers of the mass whom it has to grip’; the third forbids the use of such a major premise as that of President Andrew Jackson à propos of the Mississippi, ‘the God of the Universe intended this great valley to belong to one nation,’ which was self ­evident to him and his hearers, but not easily demonstrated to one who questioned it."

Assuming Russell's three rules for reasoning, one can begin to formulate an understanding of many of the more ungainly topics of which we occasionally are brought to consider; e.g., "in simple language what is a man?," or, "Is Islam good for the west?." Our object is to determine the rationality of such arguments related to thorny questions, and to determine whether they were formed through a sufficient use of reason and reasoning. I do not want to present the view that there is any one correct conclusion to difficult or even treacherous questions, conclusions that must follow merely by the use of sound reasoning. These rules do not provide a magic key for unlocking difficult problems that even challenged profound thinkers of the past. At the end of the day, we must aim at a general level of competence and hope for the best. That is the foundation of ones faith in reason. We cannot be certain of our ability to follow rules, agree with or justify their conclusions. Russell's method is the application of rules of thumb. They may prove useful for recognizing irrelevant statements and specious arguments that serve only as diversions from whatever topic is under discussion. It is wise to remember the following proposition of logic: specious arguments themselves do not invalidate the conclusion they seek to validate. We begin by observing that persuasion, as an activity, may be simply understood as the use of language to obtain an agreement.

Jane Austin, in her last novel, titled Persuasion implied the connotation of seduction in the context of her work. The connotations associated with any general term can be divided into two classes, generally viewed on one hand as positive, constructive, generous and genuine, and on the other hand, negative, destructive, illiberal, and disingenuous. Thus the idea of "friendly persuasion", presumably motivated by virtuous intent, has been introduced into the cannon of Georgian literature. We assume that the Austinian form of persuasion can be taken as an honest form of argument. A more austere form of persuasion is utilized to create an alignment or mutual understanding. Persuasion may be comprised of blandishments. Flattering statements are often used to entice the desired alignment of minds. Enticements of all kinds might be appended to the denouement of a persuasive argument. Some claims may prove less than accurate and display no evidence of common virtues, yet nevertheless maintain a positive valence and a non-threatening color.

Persuasion, as previously mentioned, may be exercised in several diametrically opposed forms, and can invoke a sinister proclivity. Machiavellian persuasion, the counterpart of Austinian forms, is perennially at the service of the determined advocate. There has been a great deal of discussion in recent years as to whether speech itself can lend itself as a vehicle for violence. It is plausible that some people, being introverted by nature, are more sensitive to their own memories than may be suitable for their own comfort. The threatening tone of insistent advocacy can no doubt import an attitude of resignation:

"Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. . . . Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present."--The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli.

Apart from people with the kind of inner insecurity that arises from social circumstances such as extreme poverty, homelessness, alienation by dint of immigration, cultural exclusion due to physical deformity, and so forth, the men and women of western countries tend to be tough minded, certain of their own opinions, and disinclined to be intimidated by digital and therefore remote forms of address. This makes the task of the online advocate more difficult where his object is either the advance of some progressive project, or the suppression of an evil practice. In America, where universities flourish with the very latest ideas of social progress and, media broadcasts corresponding narratives, one may as well try to earn a living by selling bridges on the Hudson River, as attempt to shame the typical American into doing anything he would not agree to do by means of rational conversation. The hypnotized man will not generally renounce his own moral standards. Jonathan Swift aptly has been attributed to the statement, "You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into."

The problem of irreconcilable differences is, of course insoluble and in the face of an orthodox resistance a precursor of interminable conflict. The obvious solution is for moderators to exercise resolve in maintaining a high regard for theoretical argument and reject political activism on the site itself. That is, the arguments in favor of an activist position should be promoted without the mandatory choosing of winners and losers. The self-appointed censors shriek about what amounts to claims of some abstract form of unacceptable behavior (blasphemy); the general users are intimidated (submission); and generally, a moderator is called upon to make Solomonic judgement upon the issue; always subject to the confirmation bias of an imagined but never stipulated ethos. It is one of the more populist, right-wing characters of this wiki that once an issue has been decided, as an issue it matriculates to the status of being unquestioned and unchallengeable. Consider the emblematic sign of terminating relations on Rational Wiki:

R   E   T   I   R   E   D
This user has requested that their pages be archived and left untouched.
This is due to a private decision to leave RationalWiki and never come back.
Please honor their request. (Inquiries here)

The general attitude towards users who quit using Rational Wiki is really unknowable. Nevertheless, there is an implied theatrical bathos in response to the retirement emblem, through either aesthetic ineptitude or comic intention:

It is usually publicly announced, done with great fanfare, and followed by a quiet return within a week or even within a few minutes. A statement of LANCB virtually guarantees a return, thus destroying any ultimata or idealism involved in their "leaving". The addictive quality of interactive media, is regarded as comic. It is taken for granted that emotionally weak people cannot last long in community media; commonly, because of the constant population of unsympathetic, even deleterious personalities, typing out their narcissistic projections. Indeed, one must practice the art of social indifference and foreswear the possibility of cordial relations to be an effective correspondent. These fragile people, in particular, should serve as the coalmine canaries. When writing of fair play among the oppressed classes, refusing to be cordial with a perfect stranger is not collegial, not constructive,not kind and in general not the way to park oneself in a disheveled virtual space. I recall a favorite bar situated in an old factory complex amid a maze-like parking lot. The side of the main building had the following sign painted on the front wall: PARKING INSTRUCTIONS: DON'T PARK LIKE AN ASSHOLE.