it seems like we keep returning to the intersection of religion and rationality (and non-human animal rights and rationality, and any belief and rationality) so i thought i would throw this into the mix.
i was reading a 2002 essay entitled "vegetarian ecofeminism: a review essay" (big surprise, i know!) yesterday by greta gaard. in her intro, gaard interrogates "sympathy" and talks about the ways in which sympathy has come to be not typically supported in this particular cultural milieu. gaard is talking here, obviously, about non-human animal rights (not religion or the other things we've discussed) but/and she borrows an argument made by brian luke about sympathy and rationality that seems important. she quotes luke, who argues:
All of us, whether vivisector or vegan, have been subject to mechanisms undercutting sympathy for animals. How long and to what extent we submit to these mechanisms is not a matter of rationality: to cut off our feelings and support animal exploitation is rational, given societal expectations and sanctions; but to assert our feelings and oppose animal exploitation is also rational, given the pain involved in losing our natural bonds with animals. So our task is not to
pass judgment on others' rationality, but to speak honestly of the loneliness and isolaton of anthropocentric society, and of the damage done to every person expected to hurt animals.
this strikes me as a point worthy of discussion. according to luke, there is rationality in choosing an ideological (or philosophical or spiritual) position that allows you to feel okay in the world (for lack of a more flowery phrase!).
the question i pose to you, then (and i'm thinking here especially of the piece we read for friday's forum by sam harris) is:
to what extent is the argument of "irrationality" persuausive? when and how is it useful to suggest that people who hold certain ideological positions that help to "make them feel okay in the world" are being irrational by holding those beliefs? how could you make this sort of argument without appealing to rationality? is there even a reason to do that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Excellent point. I will have to argue that there is a point to appeal to irrationality. It is in a sense, Dadaist; anti-rationality. It is, immagination or fantasy. The irrational is a drive of pure pleasure: very utopian and allied with revolution. Therefore, we should strive to follow our natural drive for pleasure if we ever want to conquer reality.
We have come to a point in civilization when we are not instituted as 'mad', but are praised as 'insane'. It's no wonder that most famous celebs often live crazy lives, yet we just can't get enough of them. In improv or stand-up comedy, for example, the performer or comedian is trained to appeal to the irrational. Why?
Tali
why, indeed!
i want to hear some more thoughts on this.
i wrote a paper last semester about our love of the "irrational" girls - lilo, nicole richie, and (rest her soul) anna nicole smith. much of their appeal seems to be the crazy irrationality you've mentioned. i wonder, though, to what extent "irrationality" is about "making your way in the world." coping, making do, getting by - as well as humor and celebrity, as you've said.
I smell the lurking of a "relativist rationality" argument in this post. I don't have time at the moment to write in length, but I will address one point (if not the entire point) analogously.
Concerning the 4th paragraph, second sentence, and the last paragraph, last sentence (in light of the entire paragraph): I enjoy subjugating minorities. Owning slaves, shunning homosexuals, and keeping women in their place, for lack of a more flowery phrase, makes me feel good about myself. And because what's rational for you may not be rational for me, I'm in no wrong when I disregard your "natural rights" rationality for my "subjugate all" perspective. I can't help it, and in fact I don't even need to try, because belittling, manipulating, and exploiting all non-white people is what makes me feel good in life. And who are you to convince me of my supposed irrationality, especially when my entire wonderful life is determined through this explanatory scheme?
I read this again and I'm having a hard time with the idea that emotions can/should override rationality. By the mere flick of the intellect one can dismiss rationality for propositions that let them "feel okay in the world," however absurd they may be. For instance, the argument from emotions would necessarily conclude that if believing in a deity who has a special place for me in his "heaven" when I die eases my fear of death, then I'm justified in believing in the deity, however irrational or contrary to reality it may be. Wow, I was disgusted just typing that...can you believe people throw their lives away believing that garbage?
Irrespective, this seems, from the minor angle I'm working at least, like a "black-hole" argument, as the question, 'Why be rational', is logically unintelligible. Think about it, in answering the question we would be giving reasons for being rational, therefore presupposing rationality in our attempt to justify rationality. I don't think this would be begging the question either, but merely demonstrating that the question needs no justification and hence, the assertion to act or think rationally also needs no justification, as any justification would presuppose the assertion, rationality. Therefore, when we have good reason for suspecting irrationality, like when 90% of a country’s population believes in an omni-benevolent deity without an ounce or shred of justification, and this irrationality causes a spectacular amount of misery and suffering among both its adherents and its adherent’s subordinates, then we have a moral imperative to recognize and convince this tyranny of irrationality of its very irrationality.
Furthermore, and to drip with Existentialism, man’s encounter with Nothingness has left him reeling. Once it was discovered, as Nietzsche so emphatically put it, that god is truly dead, the void left from where god once occupied allowed the floodgates of irrationality to burst open, thus deluding man with unjustified propositions instead of allowing him to seek and understand his own existence. Kierkagaard told the story best of the absent-minded man so removed from his own life that he hardly knows he exists until one fine morning he wakes up to find himself dead. How interesting, man’s belief in the irrational was and is not only a direct result of the death of god, but of his inability to recognize his own worth as a rational being and explore and celebrate his own existence.
(I typically use female pronouns when referring to “human-kind,” but it was a little cumbersome to do so in this latter paragraph.
Post a Comment