The long drawn out death of rationality.

[ICB]

So what? Well, the problem is that you're conflating those postmodernist thinkers who mourn the condition they describe (Jameson, Debord, early Baudrillard) with those who endores or celebrate it (Butler, Lyotard, late Baudrillard). But both sides *describe* the current situation accurately enough.

Or they just point out another way of looking at things, which can be interesting and useful or can be worrying and problematic depending on what you're looking at and why. People who take these guys too seriously remind me of Bishop Berkeley's mate who told him to walk through the front door.

 

[Stigmata]

The difference being that today they are using pseudo science (creationism) as a way underpinning superstitious beliefs. Which in my eyes will lead to scientific atrophy, that cant be a good thing.

I'm not sure I agree- science and pseudoscience have always coexisted, and i'd argue pseudosciences such as astrology and alchemy, and even Victorian spiritualism, have been stronger in the past than they are now, at least in the developed world.

 

[phildwyer]

I'm not sure I agree- science and pseudoscience have always coexisted, and i'd argue pseudosciences such as astrology and alchemy, and even Victorian spiritualism, have been stronger in the past than they are now, at least in the developed world.

Except that neoclassical economics is the ultimate pseudo-science, and it is not only "strong" but dominates the entire world. It does so by means of its fetishization of rationality.

 

[bluestreak]

i think the longview will be that rationality was the merest blip, a passiing fashion for a certain type of human in amongst thousands of years of mysticism, religion, and irational thinking.

 

[Crispy]

I'm not sure I agree- science and pseudoscience have always coexisted, and i'd argue pseudosciences such as astrology and alchemy, and even Victorian spiritualism, have been stronger in the past than they are now, at least in the developed world.

Well, that's kind of my point. As the rest of the world rushes to catch up, it's bringing it's superstitions with it. And, demographically speaking, "they" outnumber "us" many times over. If/when the current world order collapses, and the mainly secular, rational ideals that govern it cease to have power, then the playing field becomes level. And the irrational nutters win.

 

[Stigmata]

Well, that's kind of my point. As the rest of the world rushes to catch up, it's bringing it's superstitions with it. And, demographically speaking, "they" outnumber "us" many times over. If/when the current world order collapses, and the mainly secular, rational ideals that govern it cease to have power, then the playing field becomes level. And the irrational nutters win.

I think the scientific method that arose out of the Enlightenment is something of a Pandora's box. It would take a great deal to persuade even very religious types to abandon technological progress entirely, and as long as we continue to discover material solutions to problems and secular explanations for the universe rationalism has little to fear.

I suspect the desire for education in the third world will ultimately count in favour of common sense as well. But i'm an optimist.

 

[Roadkill]

So what? Well, the problem is that you're conflating those postmodernist thinkers who mourn the condition they describe (Jameson, Debord, early Baudrillard) with those who endores or celebrate it (Butler, Lyotard, late Baudrillard). But both sides *describe* the current situation accurately enough.

Oh no I'm not. I hinted at the distinction in the caveat to my last post - which was aimed mainly at the second group.

i think the longview will be that rationality was the merest blip, a passiing fashion for a certain type of human in amongst thousands of years of mysticism, religion, and irational thinking.

I sincerely hope not! Tbh though I tend to agree wtih Stigmata's last post, which provides some grounds for hope...

 

[phildwyer]

Oh no I'm not. I hinted at the distinction in the caveat to my last post - which was aimed mainly at the second group.

Well I agree with you about the second group. Their problem is, they see reason as oppressive, and so conclude that the postmodern occlusion of reason must be liberating. They do not understand that capitalist economics represents the *ultimate* occlusion of reason, which occurs when reason is fetishized. A fetish of something is the reverse of its essence.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do nothing of the sort. The man is a pedlar of intellectual snake-oil.

I think there's a "pseudo" missing from your assessment.

 

[kakuma]

what an utter load of shite

Socrates said more than any rationalist did, you lot are just moaning about the death of capitalism. i think we live in a great age. mass media is going into this bunker and alienating itself from reality, meanwhile real stuff is happening more than ever.

people expect to agree with these false constructs now they are a little bit more educated, if you don't find any reason in your daily life, then it is YOU that needs to change it

 

[phildwyer]

Socrates said more than any rationalist did

Socrates *was* a rationalist.

 

[laptop]

it could just as easily be the same amount of irrationality taking on new guises.

I think it's that.

The difference from, say, 25 years ago is that we have more states that have been partly captured by visible forms of organised militant irrationality - the US, Zimbabwe, Israel, Iran...

It's a backlash.

It'll be a temporary phenomenon, one way or another.

Either it'll blow over, as backlashes do. After all, the conservatives in each case are pretty old... want to return the world to an imagined glorious state of their childhood.

Or they'll blow us up before they die

 

[kakuma]

Socrates *was* a rationalist.

i thought he was gay...heh

 

[kakuma]

Socrates *was* a rationalist.

but on a serious note, was he fuck, rationalism and all these ism's are a 19th century invention, rationalists will claim socrates, just as anyone claimed him

anyone who makes their mind up before they have heard what they are talking about is a cunt

we are all socrates

 

[Poi E]

The main symptom of the death of rationality is the fetishization of reason itself.

Yeah.

Mutually assured destruction is an interesting example of rationality leading to a rather absurd result.

 

[nick1181]

Yeah.

Mutually assured destruction is an interesting example of rationality leading to a rather absurd result.

I don't think that's a problem with rationality, I think that's a problem with perspective. Creating a formula and making it the whole of the game.

If the US attacks Iran, that's how it will happen - they'll get into this formula of brinksmanship that traps them.


I think the resergeance of superstition etc that we're seeing at the moment is kindof exaggerated by the fact that the main means of propagating these superstitions are power-structures that have suddenly got a lot more organised - probably due to modern communications.

 

[Poi E]

I don't think that's a problem with rationality, I think that's a problem with perspective. Creating a formula and making it the whole of the game..

The fetishization of rationality that phil referred to.

 

[nick1181]

Althought George Lakoff would claim it's because conservative think tanks have poured billions into research and propogation of conservative communication.

In the west at least, there's a bit of a backlash underway. Back in NZ about a month ago I was amazed by the number of people I talked to who were specifically anti-religion.

 

[nick1181]

The fetishization of rationality that phil referred to.

The arms race wasn't a fetishization of rationality, it was a kind of group-think. Rationality is not the same thing as tunnel-vision.

re : "The fetishization of rationality" : I suspect that's Phil attempting to drag science into the same arena as religion because he does so dearly love the sound of his own voice when he talks about religion. I'd be wary of that one generally I think.

Rationality isn't fetishized in any case. It simply works better, more often, and more reliably than Irrationality.

 

[Poi E]

Althought George Lakoff would claim it's because conservative think tanks have poured billions into research and propogation of conservative communication..
QUOTE]

The Soviet Union was well into the arms race, too. I mean, the US "Defence Department contractors" practically are a department of state. Ideological differences but the same objective.

 

[Poi E]

The arms race wasn't a fetishization of rationality, it was a kind of group-think. Rationality is not the same thing as tunnel-vision.y.

Yes, the group shared the same objective: maintaining parity of weaponry so as to guarantee security. The ultimate end of this would be mutual destruction. It was thoroughly rational. It wasn't moral by any means.

 

[nick1181]

Yes, the group shared the same objective: maintaining parity of weaponry so as to guarantee security. The ultimate end of this would be mutual destruction. It was thoroughly rational. It wasn't moral by any means.

It was only rational within the scope of the formula they were executing. Not to try to adopt a wider perspective where everyone doesn't lose isn't rational.

The arms race wasn't an expression of rationality. It was two power-structures going head to head on the pretext of having differing ideologies - advised by people who more often than not had a vested interest in things carrying on the way they were.

Neither group was interested in maintaining the parity of weaponry btw. If they were (which would be somewhat more rational) there wouldn't have been an arms race.

 

[nick1181]

Althought George Lakoff would claim it's because conservative think tanks have poured billions into research and propogation of conservative communication..
QUOTE]

The Soviet Union was well into the arms race, too. I mean, the US "Defence Department contractors" practically are a department of state. Ideological differences but the same objective.

- sorry the comment about Lakoff wasn't about the arms race - it was a postscript to my comment about the power structures based around superstion becoming more organised. Posts crossing etc.

 

[Poi E]

It was only rational within the scope of the formula they were executing. .

Exactly. Ethics and reason are uneasy bed fellows, I reckon.

 

[Jonti]

... I can't help thinking that the postmodernists* who've argued that reality doesn't actually exist, that one 'narrative' is always as good as another, or that scientific methods in the social sciences are just techniques of 'emplotment' do represent an increase in irrationality.

*Yes I know this is a catch-all term and I'm stereotyping up to a point, but so what?

There's no postmodernists on the internet. Only hypocrites. (This is a twist on the aviation joke, "there's no postmodernists at 25000 feet ... ")

 

[JTG]

I'm sorry but I think the original post is premised on some very odd views.

The idea that rationality = science = atheism and therefore irrationality = religion = doom doesn't stand up. What about the great scientific advances of Islam when Europe was in the dark ages? Were the innovations of the industrial revolution, continued through the 19th century achieved in a religious vacuum? Of course not.

It seem to me that the original post is drawing a line, one side of which are the non-religious, forward thinking peoples of the world, the other side are the religious nutters. It doesn't work like that, just because, say, Indonesia or Bangladesh are Muslim countries and have exploding populations it doesn't mean that the world will become a backward, barabric place. Religious people are capable of rational thought and civilised behaviour - though fundamentalism does worry me. But you can't sensibly argue that religion is anti-science or inherently backward, it doesn't stand up to the facts of the last few thousand years - SOME of the facts maybe, but by no means all of them.

*waits for the Urban atheist fundamentalist nutters to start flaming*

 

[nick1181]

I'm not entirely convinced that scientific progress has happened in spite of religion rather than being helped by it in any significant way.

Religious people may be capable of thought and rational behaviour - but religion is essentially a power-structure based on motivating people on the basis of something that can't be proved - on the basis of irrationality. Things like love and compassion have this funny way of going out the window in favour of hate and violence.

By the way, "atheist fundamentalist nutters" is a dishonest attempt by religious nutters to paint moderates as extremists.

 

[JTG]

I'm not entirely convinced that scientific progress has happened in spite of religion rather than being helped by it in any significant way.

Religious people may be capable of thought and rational behaviour - but religion is essentially a power-structure based on motivating people on the basis of something that can't be proved - on the basis of irrationality. Things like love and compassion have this funny way of going out the window in favour of hate and violence.

By the way, "atheist fundamentalist nutters" is a dishonest attempt by religious nutters to paint moderates as extremists.

Last point - no it isn't. There are atheist fundamentalists all over Urban and a lot of them express views on people with religious leanings which are frankly offensive.

Your middle paragraph - could be applied to many belief systems including capitalism. You talk about religious structures as though they are the same thing as religious belief. They are not.

Finally, my point was not that religion has necessarily helped science, just that it is not an inherent hindrance.

 

[Fruitloop]

What does atheist fundamentalism mean? It seems to me that a fundamentalism of something that is purely negatively conceived (like atheism) is a contradiction in terms.

 

[JTG]

What does atheist fundamentalism mean? It seems to me that a fundamentalism of something that is purely negatively conceived (like atheism) is a contradiction in terms.

To me it's imposing your own unproven beliefs on other people. Dismissing belief in an aggressive way with recourse to either insulting language or ignorance of key facts which would mitigate the adherance to religious belief of others.

For example, implying that scientific advancement isn't possible in a religious environment - never mind the actions of some religious leaders, what about the achievements of those who were deeply religious themselves?