Naive Rationalism II
Monday Map
Today I will be discussing the second part of Naive Rationalism. I wrote in part one that Naive Rationalism is the assumption that all things are accessible to reason. Because of its prevalence, it is common to defeat a person by accusing them of irrationality simply because he/she moves or thinks outside of a neat rational order. When you think, and hold dearly the conception that the answers fit into a neat rational box regardless of how “nuanced” they are, it becomes easier to become conceited because you think you know the answer and the other person doesn’t. In fact, rationality in my view is a big cudgel; with spiky ends that you can wield to club an opponent’s argument without having to refute it. You just need to announce to the world that the person is being irrational.
In a world where everyone jostles to appear more rational (not necessarily to be rational) because their reputation depends on it, rationality becomes a status symbol and somewhat a customised property. But my newest finding shows something counterintuitive: that rationality is public property; it is collectively owned.
Rationality has its effects first and foremost in scenes of exchange. It is a communal organ: an organ that evolved to meet the demands of agreement and accountability. If you existed alone without a need to give account, your rational faculties will wither away. Rationality is not a property that can be perfected in isolation. It requires exercise in a discussion. No amount of logical calculation of your ideas and informed actions can attain perfect rationality without being tested in a communal setting – namely discussion and conversation.
There is one mistake which allows people to claim that they are objective: that rationality is the same as objectivity.
As far as I can conceive, objectivity is a quality well sought after. This is because it means having the right answer. So, in the age of decentralised communication, objectivity, critical thinking, and being rational (or at least appearing so) are not just goals we aim for. They are fashion trends that signal that one is better quality when it comes to dealing with knowledge. But how wrong can you be?
When you accuse a fellow (online mostly) of being irrational just because of a few words that barely explains their perspective and position, you should know that that is the smell of hubris coming out from the pits of your knowledge (not a good smell).
Let me point out again that rationality is an adaptive organ which pertains to knowledge that is developed communally or collectively rather than a private library affair. Anyone you see with a fairly good rating of rationality is and can only be a product of sharp discussions rather than isolated thinkism.
To smoke out naive rationalists from their rabbit holes, simply point out that rationality is in what you do – an action that has an impact on others – rather than in opinions. For naive rationalists deride you for not holding the correct opinion. And they can only assert this to you because they think they hold the correct opinion or even more arrogantly, that their opinions are true, objective, and factual. They think that by thinking, they may have transcended a narrow viewpoint to see the world with some clarity that no one else has.
Rational thought that is separated from action has no weight. With this litmus, you may accord anyone who withdraws from a good-faith discussion on the accusatory basis that their opponent is being irrational the grand title of actually being irrational. Their actions are simply irrational.
Naive rationalism casts a burden on people. A burden which I will describe using the words of Roger Scruton thus:
“Ordinary people are in the unfortunate position of believing things that are true but which they cannot defend by any rational argument that will withstand the force of scientific reasoning, however flawed that reasoning may be.”
The question then is how do they know it is true without subjecting it to a rational test? The answer lies in the wisdom of the crowd; not with the individual’s mental acuity for anything at all, if put under sufficient pressure, can be made to fit with “reason.”
The wisdom of crowds is a spontaneous aggregate. It is the result of unorganised discussion – without boundaries and rules. Nothing is off-limits to be said and no one is wielding a mighty hammer. No one is casting a status nor are we repudiating and sending someone out of the discussion because they are “irrational.” And even better, we who are part of the discussion are faceless men hence, our status holds no bearing.
If you don’t have an argument, it is fine. Reality will take care of you. What reality harbours is the experts of the ludic fallacy – who are only champions as long as the grounds for the battle are sterilized. But as many are as willing to go into the mud to present and protect their viewpoints and values, they are the favoured ones. And they will surely come out on top. Vale
“Smart people take feedback from reality not society”
Naval
Recommended Article
There is An Aeon publication hugely similar to my essay. I believe it was a silent influence on my essay today. However, I didn’t bother citing it and I completed it before finding the link. So, you can read the article with this link. Enjoy.
Of course, here is your picture:
Image credit: woshdraws
Enjoy your week.