Debunking myths of reason

• There is no single, universal rationality. Rationality is a consensus of a group on how to think and act. There are many different rationalities.
• Rationality cannot exist without unsupportable, foundational beliefs
• The term ‘irrational’ is often used to imply ‘mad’ and to dismiss one’s interlocutor rather than to engage them with sensible arguments, sincerity and an open mind
• Richard Rorty defines allegations of irrationality as affirmations of vernacular “otherness”, and so accusations of irrationality are not only brushed aside, but are expected during any argument. (From the Wikipedia article bearing his name).
• Rationality has boundaries and is therefore inherently close-minded
• ‘Rationality is on our side’ has replaced ‘God is on our side’
• ‘I am being rational, my interlocutor is being subjective’
• Thinking my beliefs rational can be a specious way of enchanting them with divine authority
• Rationality is more often than not prejudiced and that prejudice is hidden in language and the limitations of the conceptual framework
• One man’s rationality is another man’s sophistry
• Rational can be code for pretentious, irrelevant mental-masturbation
• Rationality can be merely imperialist subjectivity
• Rationality does not infer reasonableness
• Rationality can mean following the herd and adopting views of the culture against your better instrincts
• Rationality is often just pragmatism given undue prestige
• A rational soul? Point to it or stop the fantasy
• Reason is but rationalisation of the non-rational
• Rationality is merely saying ‘I know that I know’
• In a meaningless universe, everything and anything can be said to be rational, so long as you have the power to coerce such a belief

Don’t get me started on ‘analytic’…

Happiness Comes From Within

I was planning to blog my own content on happiness until I came across this post: Happiness Comes From Within

I will make some comments on the blogger’s various interpretations and evaluations.

The philosopher seems to have a Cartesian (dualistic) view of mind and world and this leads to some unnecessarily complicated and incorrect explanations.

1. Happiness is not a product of our minds, rather it is a product of our experience of the world. Our experience of the world is the world. To clarify, what we perceive as the world is our world from a first-person point of view. Throwing ‘mind’ into the equation is redundant.

We can simply choose to be happy or unhappy at any moment, but cultivating character will make it easier, i.e. habitual.

2. ‘events filtered through our own values and desires’ make up experience, but experience also includes thoughts, reflections, expectations, emotions and moods. Happiness cannot come only from within if events are part of the experience that leads to happiness.

3. While the expression ‘happiness comes from within’ is not technically correct, it is true that people can choose to be happy.

It is not action (or in this case, reaction) that leads to happiness rather it is experience, with the essential element of thinking you are happy. The author is contradicting himself in assuming that a change in environmental conditions through action will be responsible for happiness.

4. The author understands ‘choice’ in this instance as a decision to take some action which may or may not ’cause’ happiness. We can take any action and afterward be happy or unhappy, it does not depend on the consequence of the action necessarily, it depends on our choice to see the world in a particular way.

5. This is too hypothetical for me to bother to comment.

6. I agree that a natural (appetite from our genes) reaction to unhappiness can be altered with practice (nurture), but I disagree that ’situations’ cause unhappiness. Though, what exactly is unhappiness but another emotion like anger, sadness or melancholy?

7. I agree that we can adjust our ‘personality’ towards one that is conducive to a happy life, but I don’t know how hard it would be for each individual; it depends on nature and nurture (rather, nature through nurture – but this is a technical point).

A person starving to death can be happy or unhappy. This may seem impossible, but it is true. Granted though, the odds are that a typical individual will not be happy. Look for example at martyrs who have died for religious causes, some have been fanatically delighted at the prospect of death.

8. Happiness does not come from anything but our choice to experience the world with happiness.

Comin’ atcha

Macho walks appear to be comin’ atcha

I’m a 6′3″ muscular male and I have often observed facial expressions from women in particular which seem to indicate that they think I am coming towards them.

Women, would please let me go about my business without flashing looks at me, unless they are highly suggestive?

Kierkegaard on the State

Kim Fabricius, my favourite God-bothering-blogger, has a quote from Kierkegaard on the state. I wanted to highlight this as a way of saying that Nietzsche, Marx and other atheists were hardly the first to realise that Christianity has been used for less than noble purposes.

It seems odd that many critics of Christianity liberally quote from atheist critics of religion such as Marx, yet never find room to quote its Christian critics. If they did their arguments would carry more weight. I suspect that they choose not to because they are pushing an agenda much more radical than a fair critique of Christianity, and are not being completely honest about it.

Kierkegaard on the State

Good life theories

Some good good, double-plus good life theories:

Theories of self-interest (Derek Parfit)

The story of your life, or life as a work of art

Existentialism is super-rational

A favourite myth of diehard modernists is that Existentialism is ‘irrational’ – a term used to dismiss rather than discuss. It is not irrational, rather it is non-rational. There is a profound difference between the two. Kierkegaard’s leap of faith (actually, leap into faith) is only to be taken when reason has been stretched to its limits. He defines faith as an objective uncertainty grasped with subjective certainty. Existentialism is beyond reason, it is super-rational.

Even Immanuel Kant, the champion of reason, recognised that reason had its limits and allowed room for (but did not encourage) faith and imagination. It is time that those who profess to follow him did the same, rather than clinging to triumphalist myths of reason which were thoroughly discredited last century.

The will to live forever

No doubt many people are tempted into religion due to a promise of an afterlife. We all have an indispensable urge to live forever, but most people do not recognise this in their behaviour.

Rulers the world over have built monuments to themselves because in them they hope part of their existence will be identified and remain forever in this world, through the memory of others. Artists create for the same reason, to have their existence recognised within/as their work. Kings build empires, martyrs die for causes, philosophers produce treatises, poets write and we want to leave a legacy to family and community in order to secure an eternal existence.

In death, we can only exist as a self in the memories of others. We want graven images and/or a place in a movement and history so that the world will not forget us. This is what many of us strive for our entire lives.

Philosopher’s version of Que Sera, Sera

(Nietzsche)
When I was just a little girl
I told my mother, what I will to power
I will be pretty, I will be rich
Here’s what she said to me.

(Sartre)
Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, I will be
The future is ours, to take responsibility
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, I will be.

(Kierkegaard)
When I was young, I fell in love
I asked my sweetheart, what lies ahead?
We will have melancholy, day after day
Here’s what my sweetheart said.

(Hegel)
Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, the spirit wills be
The past is ours, to re-see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, the spirit wills be.

(Heidegger)
Now I have rectorship of my own
The students ask me, what is it ‘to be’?
Will I be, being-in-the-world?
I tell them tenderly.

(Schopenhauer)
Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, the will wills be
The future’s fucked-up and then you die, you will see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, the will wills be.

Hardwired to share

Humans may be ‘hardwired to share’

So don’t blame me if I burden you with my mental problems. Our genes tell us to share

Why ask the question of the meaning of life?

Freudians may see my asking the question as an indication that I was having issues with my sex and work life.

To satisfy their curiosity:

• sex: not getting enough
• work: getting too much

But seriously, I do see where they are coming from. Although, I would like to add that I had the above issues before I seriously examined the question.

Where might the Freudian be coming from…

Isn’t the point of life simply to live it, dealing with any personal issues as effectively as possible as soon as they arise? Just throw yourself into life, deal with the problems you can and then resign yourself to fate. Questions of meaning distract us from the main game.

That is not a bad philosophy, but far too naive for me. I cannot resign myself to the vagaries of a directionless life. I cannot, in good conscience, just immerse myself into my culture like one of the herd. I want to take philosophical charge of my life. I want to take responsibility. I want to use the freedom I have to create my life. This means I must ask questions of meaning in order to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die.