Can someone please explain “rationalism” and why it seems to be used in a negative sense when I see it?
As it derives from rational, I would have thought it to be a positive term in Objectivist terms.
Can someone please explain “rationalism” and why it seems to be used in a negative sense when I see it?
As it derives from rational, I would have thought it to be a positive term in Objectivist terms.
from the Ayn Rand Lexicon:
Rationalism vs. Empiricism. [Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exlusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists) – and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who joined the [mysitics] by abandoning reality – and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind.
Objectivism opposes both rationalism and empiricism by stating that knowledge is the product of applying reason to reality.
from the Ayn Rand Lexicon:
Objectivism opposes both rationalism and empiricism by stating that knowledge is the product of applying reason to reality.
I understand, but I definitely do not like that we’ve given the mystics a label which derives from what Objectivists are: Rational!
Ah well, it’ll take me some time to get used to substituting “rationalist” for “witch doctor” in my head, but I’ll manage.
Thanks!
Can someone please explain “rationalism” and why it seems to be used in a negative sense when I see it?
As it derives from rational, I would have thought it to be a positive term in Objectivist terms.
I’ve heard the term most frequently applied in the context of romantic relationships, to describe someone who ignores his emotions and acts on the way he thinks he should feel, rather than on the way he does feel. While emotions are not tools of cognition, introspection can reveal that an emotion has a source in a fact one had not previously acknowledged. For example, a woman meets a brilliant, successful, charming, good-looking man. They begin a romantic relationship, and when he asks her to marry him, she says yes – thinking in her head that of course she should marry him, but feeling in her heart that something isn’t right. Her head is telling her, “He’s intelligent, and gorgeous, and he has so many achievements for me to admire, so I have every reason to want to be with him!” Her heart is at odds with her head – and, as it turns out, her “something isn’t right” feeling stems from the fact that she simply doesn’t feel comfortable opening up to him in an intimate way, because on the couple of occasions she has tried to do so, he hasn’t really listened to her. By accepting his proposal in spite of her doubts, she is acting on how she thinks she should feel rather than paying attention to how she actually does feel and figuring out why she feels that way. She will not be happy with her choice – because in ignoring her emotions, she is actually ignoring an important fact that would change her rational evaluation of her situation.
In Atlas Shrugged, Galt says that if there’s a conflict between your head and your heart, you should follow your head – but this is not to say “ignore your emotions.” It means that if there’s a conflict, you should take the time to figure out *why* your head and your heart are in conflict. It could be that your heart – your subconscious – is evaluating a fact that your head has missed.
Ah well, it’ll take me some time to get used to substituting “rationalist” for “witch doctor” in my head, but I’ll manage.
Well, in those cases where I think “Boy, that is one of the most rationalistic arguments I’ve ever seen!”, I’m not inclined to think “Stupid witch doctors!” at the same time. These refer to different things. A rationalistic argument starts from a few unjustified premises, and invents steps that look like formal deductions with a liberal sprinkling of “therefores”. An example would be like this:
A. Coersion is immoral
B. Government has a monopoly on the use of force in a geographic area.
C. To maintain that monopoly, the government must initiate force against competitors,
D. Therefore government is immoral.
The witch-doctor syndrom, OTOH, refers to the fact that many people deny the validity of sense perception (i.e. “what you see has no relationship to what there is”). There is a similarity, but the crucial difference is that the rationalist largely disregards man’s source of knowedge and the witch-doctor denies it entirely. Of course extreme rationalist can lead to witch-doctoring.
Rationalism is deducing knowledge exlusively from concepts - even exclusively from a definition of a concept. The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts. A definition is not a full, exhostive description. Rationalist thus will often not include in his thinking those characteristics which are not included in a definition but are a part of this concept as existing in reality.
Rationalism is also the practice of utilizing floating abstractions instead of tying your ideas to concretes. As Sophia indicated, it means taking words and propositions as the given instead of acknowledging that *reality* is the given and words are *derived*.
The explanations are getting clearer and clearer 
Rationalism is simply deducing consequences without looking at reality.
I understand, but I definitely do not like that we’ve given the mystics a label which derives from what Objectivists are: Rational!
When used right, it actually sounds like a bad thing. Like when someone says something dumb, and another responds with, “oh, your just rationalizing it.” Rationalizing in this sense is just making up excuses even though it is obviously wrong.
A good indicator of a rationalization is actually excusing making. “I had no choice, I couldn’t help it!”
Is it ever valid to use rationalism as a concept in a positive way. I was reading The Captitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein, and he seemed to be using rationalism positively, as if he meant rational. At least that was how I took it. I don’t have the book with me, so maybe how he phrased it was correct, but either way I was confused. I will look for an example later when I get home, and can take a look, if necessary.
Is it ever valid to use rationalism as a concept in a positive way. I was reading The Captitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein, and he seemed to be using rationalism positively, as if he meant rational. At least that was how I took it. I don’t have the book with me, so maybe how he phrased it was correct, but either way I was confused. I will look for an example later when I get home, and can take a look, if necessary.
Logically, any argument based on a false premise is false.
However, Man, being able to be irrational, I think there *is* a valid case for using rationalism - and that is when you can use Rationalism to lead someone to the correct conclusion even if you use false premises to do so.
A recent such example in my own case - I have a friend who’s husband is struggling from internal contradictions (mainly with regard to their finances). Over the last several years, this couple has gradually been making *good* financial choices, which has, of course, led to an overall improvement in their finances. (Specifically, for the first time in years, they have a monthly balance sheet that’s in the black.)
Husband is frustrated because “they’re not getting anywhere” or “they’re not getting their fast enough” instead of being elated that, after the natural result of years of prior BAD judgment, the last few years of GOOD judgment is showing positive results.
This couple is very erratically religious - but at the root, husbands misery was coming from an internal conflict - from not knowing what his goals were, and yet from being frustrated for not having achieved these undefined goals in the previously undefined time period expected.
Using their faith in God as the premise, I was counseling the wife (as a friend, I’m not a pro) in ways to help Husband see the real source of his frustration. I accepted God as the premise, and then led the wife through a series of thought exercises to lead her to conclude that the rational mind of Man was God’s highest creation and best gift to man, and so that if Man does not use his rational mind, he is diminishing God’s gift.
I then walked through how contradictions don’t exist in nature, and how internal contradictions lead to suffering, and this helped her understand how Husband’s own irrationality was frustrating him more than anything else.
This was, I later learned, helpful to her in helping her husband come to a better grip with reality about their finances.
False premise - right conclusion.
Logically flawed, but morally valid, I think.
However, Man, being able to be irrational . . .
This is a prime example of a rationalistic argument. Yes, men are capable of irrationality–which makes it even more important *not* to *indulge* their irrationality. That’s not to say that it’s your job to browbeat them until they become rational. But the only thing you can ever deal with in other people is their rational mind.
It’s always been my thought that a real friend doesn’t treat someone like a sheep that needs to be led–even if they are acting like one! (Maybe even *especially* if they are acting like one!) This is exactly the kind of behavior meant by the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. I give you full credit for caring and wanting to help, but it serves no ultimate purpose to act in an unprincipled manner and to divorce ends from means. It’s the sort of simple concrete situation that, philosophically, is immensely complex.
This is getting into other thread territory (and the full explanation of the reasons is probably as long as OPAR, so you’d be better off just *reading* OPAR if you haven’t already), so you may want to wander around and see if there’s anything else on this same subject that strikes your fancy.
Is it ever valid to use rationalism as a concept in a positive way. I was reading The Captitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein, and he seemed to be using rationalism positively, as if he meant rational. At least that was how I took it. I don’t have the book with me, so maybe how he phrased it was correct, but either way I was confused. I will look for an example later when I get home, and can take a look, if necessary.
One can rationalize something and come to a good conclusion, but its not the right way to reach a conclusion. I like to think of rationalizing as a top-down approach to thinking rather than a bottom-up approach.
I could say about individual rights:
-
Countries that have rights the people seem to be better off
-
Therefore a society should employ rights
That would be a rationalization.
The correct way would be to do this:
-
Humans must use their mind to survive
-
Humans should therefor not be physically coerced into something
-
Therefore a society should employ rights
The first only used deduction. The second example used deduction but only after using induction to identify the nature of humans. A rationalist assume that everything can be deduced without induction–which is false, nothing can be deduced with first doing some sort of induction.
False premise - right conclusion.
At this level of detail, it’s hard to know if you used a false premise for the crux of your argument, or as an incidental “support”. You say that at some point you convinced this friend of a notion along that lines of: “reason is good”. However, other than getting there from “because it is God’s gift”, you also got there by speaking of the personal problems (“suffering”) that come from not using reason. Considering what this friend took away from your argument, if she suddenly becomes agnostic, will your argument fall, and will she think that it makes sense to throw rationality to the winds?
I could say about individual rights:
Countries that have rights the people seem to be better off
Therefore a society should employ rights
That would be a rationalization.
The correct way would be to do this:
Humans must use their mind to survive
Humans should therefor not be physically coerced into something
Therefore a society should employ rights
The first only used deduction. The second example used deduction but only after using induction to identify the nature of humans.
Didn’t the first one use induction about the nature of societies?
Didn’t the first one use induction about the nature of societies?
*blinks*
DAMN YOU SOFTWARENERD! You are right 
Rationalizing is so hard these days.
It’s always been my thought that a real friend doesn’t treat someone like a sheep that needs to be led–even if they are acting like one! (Maybe even *especially* if they are acting like one!) This is exactly the kind of behavior meant by the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. I give you full credit for caring and wanting to help, but it serves no ultimate purpose to act in an unprincipled manner and to divorce ends from means. It’s the sort of simple concrete situation that, philosophically, is immensely complex.
Rand herself said that people must learn how to think - that thinking is not automatic. I provided a little better education on how to think rationally, while helping my friend deal with her own problem. My payment was her understanding, her payment was help with her immediate problem, and a deeper understanding of the importance of rational thinking. I made no illusions - my friend knows I do not believe in God. I told her outright “If I accept for sake of argument the premise of God, then…”.
I don’t consider that to be unprincipled. I consider it to be on par with teaching a child how to take their first steps - only in this case the steps were in logic.
At this level of detail, it’s hard to know if you used a false premise for the crux of your argument, or as an incidental “support”. You say that at some point you convinced this friend of a notion along that lines of: “reason is good”. However, other than getting there from “because it is God’s gift”, you also got there by speaking of the personal problems (“suffering”) that come from not using reason. Considering what this friend took away from your argument, if she suddenly becomes agnostic, will your argument fall, and will she think that it makes sense to throw rationality to the winds?
I used their belief in God only to reach the mutual agreement that Man’s mind, and his ability to think rationally (as illustrated by all the achievements of a God made rational mind) as his greatest asset and virtue. In other words, it was only incidental support.
In other words, I used their Metaphysics to reach a rational acceptance of our epistemology. The point of getting there was to get her thinking about the importance of thinking logically.
My friend is, fortunately, not a radical Believer, and believes in Evolution. If the later friend becomes agnostic, it will not matter, because in that case, the rational mind of Man is the ultimate evolutionary result for Mankind. God was ultimately inconsequential (as always).
Rationality and logic are not interchangeable terms. You may have assisted your friend in approaching her problem in a more *logical* fashion, but rationality includes the concept of objectivity, meaning that your thinking not only conforms to the rules of logic but also conforms to reality. Any argument that assumes the existence of god at any point doesn’t conform to reality.
You can visit any university campus in the country and find a thousand people who are well trained in logic but have no conception of rationality, further proof that the two things are not necessarily tied together.
Rationality and logic are not interchangeable terms. You may have assisted your friend in approaching her problem in a more *logical* fashion, but rationality includes the concept of objectivity, meaning that your thinking not only conforms to the rules of logic but also conforms to reality. Any argument that assumes the existence of god at any point doesn’t conform to reality.
It doesn’t conform to yours or mine - it conforms to hers. Yes, I know, there is *ONE* reality - but we have to deal with irrational people. Remember, I didn’t say that I used a Rational approach, I said I used “rationalism” - that is I deduced consequences for her without looking at reality (nonexistence of God). At least, I’m pretty sure I did - if I’m getting the meaning of Rationalism vs. Rationality.
And as I said - I think in this case the application of a little Rationalism to deal with an irrational person was morally valid. Why? Because for such an action to be immoral, I would have to infringe upon her rights in some way, which I did not do. I did not lie to her and pretend like *I* believed in God. I did not give her bad advice. It may have been logically false advice, based on a bad premise, but it was the same advice I would have given starting from the Objectivist premise. The other way it could have been immoral would have been for me to sacrifice something of value for something of less or no value. I did not do that either. I found greater value in getting to the point in my discussion with an upset friend (which, I’m sorry to say, is a norm for her, so no I’m not applying emergency ethics here) than I would have found in spending a lot of time establishing the foundation of the true premise.
You can visit any university campus in the country and find a thousand people who are well trained in logic but have no conception of rationality, further proof that the two things are not necessarily tied together.
Agreed, but again - I was talking about value in using rationalism, not in being rational.
Yes, I know, there is *ONE* reality - but we have to deal with irrational people.
We do? Since when?
Mister, I don’t *have* to do anything except die.
We do? Since when?
Mister, I don’t *have* to do anything except die.
And if you don’t deal with others, you will, unless you own enough land and have the resources on that land to provide your own food and clothing, and do not have to trade for any other services with anyone.