The Limits of Rationalism

[Rolling_Stone]

Rationalism is usually limited to expository investigations of empirical facts. It is not the same as a philosophy, for as a philosophy it would be no different than intellectual history or cultural anthropology. As a philosophy, and being unable to distinguish these disciplines, it would constitute a strong case against philosophy as a viable discipline: if philosophy could only describe the ways various peoples think it would be redundant.

To “rationalists,” it seems that rationalism provides the solution to every possible philosophical problem and one has only to look back to the hard sciences to uncover them, and if the sciences have nothing to say on a particular problem, they tend to conclude that the problem itself is not worth investigating, a pointless waste of time.

However, the realities of life demand that this complacency in thinking be reconsidered. If rationalism is to assist in the living of life, it must be responsive to the changes brought about by world conditions. It has to be adaptive. It needs to change is the feeling of complacency that regards rationalism as providing the solution to every possible philosophical problem. Otherwise, it reduces the human to being stuck in ones own attitudes and ideas and unable to see beyond them. If one believes that rationalism provides every answer, then one does not need to think creatively. If one believes that the authority of rationalism comes from visible alone, then one is not being as responsive to circumstances as one needs to be. For life is not limited to the concerns of the seen. To depend wholly on rationalism in the belief that it can provide a real solutions is only mask the tendency to stop thinking and finding answers for oneself and ones society.

In their narrow-minded selfishness, rationalists see only the things their puny intellects can grasp and make use of. Rarely do they seek the Cause for its own sake; rarely do they seek with their hearts the mysteries of their own existence. The revelations of modern science offer evidence of not a mechanism so much as a universe behaving more like a living organism that's beyond all imagining, ever probing for new ways of manifestation. To know this reality and its Cause, it must be perceived by something more than the rational mind. Feeling—not the undirected emotional responses we usually think of as feeling, but a regulated and disciplined “reaching out”—must also be employed as a perceptive tool of knowledge. To know with the one-sidedness of intellect alone is to dehumanize the human. It is to be content with the vision of a one-eyed colorblind man.

That so many take pride in their “rationalism” or “rational skepticism” is telling of the society and culture in which we live. It is the mythology of our present age and what it says about us does not paint a pretty picture. It's not a myth that enriches lives. It's a myth that promotes knowledge for exploitation at the expense of wisdom. Indeed, the virtue of wisdom is scarcely mentioned in even the finest schools, except, perhaps, as something of quaint historical interest. Present-day mythologies of universe-beginnings and whatnot, while more factual in content now than in the past, impart no truths that enrich life. They give us none of the answers to the questions that really matter.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems like you put a lot of work into your straw man. I'll address the part that I believe goes to the core of the issue:

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

To “rationalists,” it seems that rationalism provides the solution to every possible philosophical problem and one has only to look back to the hard sciences to uncover them, and if the sciences have nothing to say on a particular problem, they tend to conclude that the problem itself is not worth investigating, a pointless waste of time.

That's not what rationalism says.

It does not make any claims about rationalism being sufficient to answer every possible problem. What it does say is that when examining philosophical (or other) problems, the only answers that can be validly considered to be knowledge are ones with a rational basis. This doesn't mean that every problem can be solved, only that you can never be sure whether the problems solved by means other than rationalism are really solved at all.

BTW - what's your alternative to rationalism? Irrationalism?

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

It seems like you put a lot of work into your straw man. I'll address the part that I believe goes to the core of the issue:



That's not what rationalism says.

It does not make any claims about rationalism being sufficient to answer every possible problem. What it does say is that when examining philosophical (or other) problems, the only answers that can be validly considered to be knowledge are ones with a rational basis. This doesn't mean that every problem can be solved, only that you can never be sure whether the problems solved by means other than rationalism are really solved at all.

BTW - what's your alternative to rationalism? Irrationalism?

Sorry, but nothing here worth commenting on. (But thank you for illustrating my case.)

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Sorry, but nothing here worth commenting on. (But thank you for illustrating my case.)

That's funny. This was my exact reaction to the OP.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

To “rationalists,” it seems that rationalism provides the solution to every possible philosophical problem and one has only to look back to the hard sciences to uncover them...

That would appear to be "empiricism" rather than "rationalism".

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Willamena

That would appear to be "empiricism" rather than "rationalism".

Technically, you're right. However, the way rationalism is employed in RF makes the difference one of semantics.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Technically, you're right. However, the way rationalism is employed in RF makes the difference one of semantics.

Wouldn't that mean that those who went by that way of thinking actually called it "rationalism" then? I have yet to see someone call themselves a rationalist here, but maybe I'm missing something.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Wouldn't that mean that those who went by that way of thinking actually called it "rationalism" then? I have yet to see someone call themselves a rationalist here, but maybe I'm missing something.

You are missing something. The way "rationalism" is used here is generally to say that something is rational only if it's empirical--and that's utter nonsense. Much is rational that is not empirical.

Many, many mistakes are made and I've made my share, but to my knowledge, I don't make the mistake of saying correlations between brain-states and emotions, for example, are are descriptions or evidence of emotions themselves. (I used this example because it was recently done by a new member.) Things like that are very, very common among those in RF who pride themselves as being "rationalists."

The point is, we cannot know with just one part of the intelligence. To know with only the intellect is to know only beings, not Being itself--which is where meaning resides. To know how life does things, one must know why life does things, and to know this we have to be in touch with Being itself, which is beyond the rational mind but can nevertheless be known by it.

I don't know where it comes, but there is a saying that goes something like this: "Ten hearings are less sure than one seeing, ten seeings are less sure than one hand-touching, and ten hand-touchings are less sure than one’s experience of accomplishment." Rationalism, at least as it is employed in RF, is dismissive of the most certain of these, personal experience, and because of this, "rationalists" hear nothing, see nothing and touch nothing. By clinging to empirical rationalism with such superstition and blind faith, they make it irrational.