One needs to define rationality before one may embark upon its advocacy, for the concept in itself is flawed and given to contradiction. Rationality functions on the assumption that a given thing is better or worse than another thing. Does it not then depend entirely on variable choice, which may itself be irrational? Take a conflict situation for example, say a civil war. Rationality of solution would depend upon perspective alone. If A can find the two-state settlement rational, B may find re-unification the brightest of ideas. Even so, if rationality is defined as something that 'logically creates a situation which is best for all involved', it depends upon the determination of what is good and what is not. Upon what is dependent the determination of the 'best situation'? Further irrationality? The preference of the individual answering the question? Dependant entirely on his or her location?
What then is Rationality? Nothing at all. Because even these logical statements linked may not arrive at a rationale.
What then is Rationality? Nothing at all. Because even these logical statements linked may not arrive at a rationale.
2 comments:
i must begin by praising the author to speak on the elusive topic of 'rationality' but to say that it constitutes 'NOTHING AT ALL' WOULD AT BEST BE UNFAIR.
i would like bring to the notice of my friends that it is not possible to discuss nothing as in to deny rationality it's rightful place would be nothing short of a crisis in the world particularly that of the scientific community that bases most if not all of it's arguments on the 'time tested' principles of rationality and logic which has lead to the human progress,still i do concede that what may be rational for me might mean 'nothing at all' to the author of the fantastic ARTICLE which is acccording to me really very far overreaching article driven at best by wild emotions resembling those of a poet or a person of great art WHICH IF I MAY CONCEDE THE AUTHOR MY FRIENDS IS TRUE TO THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION AGAIN JUST ACCORDING TO ME.really ARTISTIC ARTICLE AND I FOR MY PART TRUELY APPRECIATE THE CAUSE*(BEING AN ARTS STUDENT MYSELF!)
Interesting. Although, would you rather that rationale not govern what we do?
"Take a conflict situation for example, say a civil war. Rationality of solution would depend upon perspective alone. If A can find the two-state settlement rational, B may find re-unification the brightest of ideas."
Maybe I'm myopic, but I don't really see the point of the example quoted. Are you, by the example suggesting that war is irrational?
To conclude, just the fact that you have to reason with yourself to actually discuss the absence of the need for reason is reason enough for reason and rationale to exist. That's an original line, write it down.
Post a Comment