Rational Romaticism

[ZSorenson]

I've always been at a loss understanding the modern mainstream philosophy. It's what you would call modern 'liberalism'. Moderate political correctness, moderate environmentalism.

The case against extreme interpreations of various philosophies has been made extensively. The cases against the New Left of the 70's, against Weimar culture, against Progressivism, pragmatism, fascism, Marxism have all been made.

But what of the modern intellectual of 1990-20XX? The sort that is 'liberal', 'open', 'agnostic', 'Clintonian', 'democratic', the sort that likes 'limited' free markets, the sort that is against 'extremism'? I haven't classified this sort of philosophy. I think I have finally done so.

I call my conclusion, perhaps terribly inaccurately, 'rational romanticism'. The philosophy of these people I would describe by: emotional whim as the standard of value. Their epistemology is based on reason, but their conclusions abandon it. Their 'rational' approach to the study of ethics and human conciousness have led them to conclude, like many before, that values are subjective. Unlike others, they refuse to abandon reason. As they understand it, for emotions that give life meaning, there is no mystical explanation that gives particular cosmic significance to them. There is also no objective standard into which these emotions can properly fit. But rather than reject these whims, or attempt to contextualize them in reality, they uphold them as the ultimate value. Happiness just is, and it's pursual is paramount. Love is the highest value, whatever it is. They do not believe in God, and often ridicule faith. They consider themselves enlightened, educated, rational. Although arbitrary, they consider whim to be a consistent standard of value that is more or less universally understood. There is some truth to this. This is different than the brute. They have rejected faith, but whim defines their ethics.

They despise Objectivism. For the sake of love and happiness, their standards, human life is valuable just because it is. Because that is what our emotions tell us. It's as if the argument is, by the standard of arbitrary whims a clear objective standard is arbitrary. That's techinally true.

But of course their error is clear. These subjective arbitrary values are still the product of reality, and are still understood and contextualized by reason. Reason and reality come first. They, for their exaltation of the arbitrary, have chosen to ignore this fact. In fact, it is shocking how accepting these 'men of science' are of sheer unadulterated mysticism in the form of Platonism. See Roger Penrose and Neal Stephenson.

If you look at San Francisco, it's a city long in decline, California is on the brink of collapse. New York City is being abandoned by its patrons. Europe is in crisis, and is collapsing along tribal lines. And America isn't too far behind. 'Rational Romanticism' doesn't work, by any means. Although, it is understandable why people accept it. Coddling, modern society, provide strong incentives to live in an emotional bubble.

But it is a poison, sucking the virtue out of the best and brightest. Do you know what is painful to watch? The TED conference. Here, there are so many unique and inspiring ideas. But they are linked with the worst altruism and moral confusion. How can this happen? How do the minds that move our economy forward become so entrenched in useless moralizing and misguided smug? It drives me crazy!

I never have understood it, or categorized it before. But I think 'Rational Romanticism' makes more sense to me than anything else. What do you think? Is their philosophy something from the past, or is this a new development? Where did it come from, Kant? What will it lead to? Please, discuss.

Edited February 14, 2010 by ZSorenson

[Rawls was Right]

Someone beat you to the punch. His name was John Rawls, have a read. And wow, talk about coincidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls#A_Theory_of_Justice

If you are characterizing 'rational romanticism' as a philosophy of moderation, look to maybe Aristotle rather than Kant if you're searching for a kind of founder.

Also, summarily attributing the decline of the United States to 'rational romanticism' carries a certain burden of proof other than just 'it has been the dominant first world philosophy for the last 20 years', which you haven't proven either.

[Jake]

Dude... checkout the Forum Rules (especially 1.)

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?act=boardrules

[Rawls was Right]

Dude... checkout the Forum Rules (especially 1.)

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?act=boardrules

Rawls and Rand have a lot in common in their premises. Vastly different conclusions, I admit, but I respect objectivism a lot for its premises. I'm not trying to make anyone mad or anything.

[Trebor]

Rawls and Rand have a lot in common in their premises. Vastly different conclusions, I admit, but I respect objectivism a lot for its premises. I'm not trying to make anyone mad or anything.

For anyone curious to read what Miss Rand actually had to say about John Rawls and his "theory of justice," see her "An Untitled Letter" from the January 29, 1973 issue of The Ayn Rand Letter. That issue is also included in Philosophy: Who Needs It

From the Lexicon:

Egalitarianism:

"The new “theory of justice” [of John Rawls] demands that men counteract the “injustice” of nature by instituting the most obscenely unthinkable injustice among men: deprive “those favored by nature” (i.e., the talented, the intelligent, the creative) of the right to the rewards they produce (i.e., the right to life)—and grant to the incompetent, the stupid, the slothful a right to the effortless enjoyment of the rewards they could not produce, could not imagine, and would not know what to do with."

“An Untitled Letter,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 110.

[ZSorenson]

I am not making a complete argument. I'm probing the community for input and reflection. I wanted to know if there was a way to categorize a certain philosophical attitude that typifies modern intellectuals. This was my best effort.

I am interested to read about this Rawls character, but if he advocates what I have described, then he is definitely wrong. One reply in this thread has captured why pretty well.

[ZSorenson]

Read on Rawls. Since rules were broken I'm limiting my response to what is appropriate for this thread.

The inherent contradiction of 'rational romaniticism' is what leads to philosophies like Rawls'. It's as if he's creating a disharmony between reason and romanticism. He holds reason as a value, but distances himself from it in the name of romanticism. He holds romanticism as a value, but distances himself from it in the name of reason. That's a self-destructive philosophy.

[ZSorenson]

From VoS: " 'Happiness' can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard... To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that 'the poper value is whatever gives you pleasure' is to declare that 'the proper value is whatever you happen to value' - which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication,"

That's why we're led into oblivion. There must be some metaphysical connection between ethics and action. By defining ethics according to a standard of value that's disconnected altogether from metaphysics, you inevitably destroy the need to pursue values in reality. That's why nations spend themselves to death. There is no intellectual ammunition for moderation and responsibility. Greece.

My 'Rational Romanticists' are mere hedonists according to Rand. So, nevermind!

[Rawls was Right]

Read on Rawls. Since rules were broken I'm limiting my response to what is appropriate for this thread.

The inherent contradiction of 'rational romaniticism' is what leads to philosophies like Rawls'. It's as if he's creating a disharmony between reason and romanticism. He holds reason as a value, but distances himself from it in the name of romanticism. He holds romanticism as a value, but distances himself from it in the name of reason. That's a self-destructive philosophy.

Please elaborate on how Rawls creates disharmony between reason and this so-called romanticism. Also, you still haven't proven that your 'rational romanticism' philosophy was the dominant first world philosophy for the past 30 years or that it is responsible for the decline of the US and Europe.