How much irrationality does humanity need?

[Nevsky]

Comrades, I'm sure that we all agree here that conservative concepts such as "the nation", "family values" etc. are severely flawed, that they stand in the way of human progress and future communist society. Said concepts were products of a time where philosophy, science, sociology and psychoanalysis weren't as advanced as they are now. It would be stupid to negate progress for the sake of irrational romanticism of past ages.

What I don't consider progressive at all, though, is scientific reductionism of humanity. There were people during the october revolution who believed that in the communist future, humans were supposed to become like perfectly functioning biomechanical robots. People wouldn't have names anymore but numbers and stuff like that (the poet and syndacalist Alexei Gastev would come to mind). While some leftist comrades advocated this vision of the future, for most people it is more of a dystopia than utopia (for example in Aldous Huxley's novel "Brave New World").

Honestly, I am opposed to this type of exclusively scientifc-mechanical centered vision of communism. I think its as pseudo-scientific and reductionist as social-darwinism. What interests me at this point is how much "irrationality" we should preserve alongside social progress. For example, names are basically an irrational construction, too; my real life name would translate to "Lionheart" or something. But nontheless, I assume that most of you would still prefer to keep a name instead of a number. It is something personal, makes you more human. Or is this already a reactionary statement?

[Brutus]

We need to kid ourselves- take killing for example. Men have this idea that we can fight with dignity, that there's a proper way to kill someone. It's absurd. It's anesthetic; we need it to endure the bloody horror of murder. So some irrationality is good. If we truly abandoned all illusions and realised what feral beasts we are and how savage this world is, we would go insane.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How are names "irrational"? Names are simply convenient labels. It seems to me that a lot of people consider anything that seems sterile or "efficient" to be rational, and anything else to be irrational, but this has nothing to do with the sort of instrumental rationality that all socialists support.

(Though, if we are to replace our present names with numbers, I reserve the name "comrade Sto Odin".)


If we truly abandoned all illusions and realised what feral beasts we are and how savage this world is, we would go insane.

I am not sure this is the case. Certainly there seem to have been people that were well aware of the realities of conflict without going insane.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I don't think "irrationality," as you call it, will ever go away. We are wired for it -- our "affects" are a set of nine basic responses to stimuli that we have from birth. From these, more complex emotions arise. (The credit for these concepts goes to Silvan S. Tomkins) They evolved to help organisms adapt to changing environments. These hardwired affects are: Fear, Distress, Interest-Excitement, Anger, Enjoyment, Startle-Surprise, Disgust, and Shame. This emotional system of motivation is separate from, but has a bi-directional influence on cognition (what we feel influences what we think and what we think influences what we feel). The idea of the completely logical human (like Mr. Spock in the old Star Trek TV show) is interesting, but not really possible. In instances where humans have sustained organic damage where these emotions are taken off-line has resulted not in Spocks, but in really strange and dysfunctional people.

[Philosophos]

If we truly abandoned all illusions and realised what feral beasts we are and how savage this world is, we would go insane.

No :(. These illusions are the thing that holds humanity back. Let's suppose I'm a morron with idiotic views. Suddenly something happens in my life and I start seeing things clearly (of what bullshit I've been doing, of how much of an idiot I am etc etc).
Now either I'm going to stand up my ground take all the pain and the humiliation (from myself to myself) and start being a normal person that doesn't say bullshit or I can create or rearrange the illusions that I had I had when I was an idiot so I can continue to be an idiot...

If someone wants to overcome the feral beast that humans have inside of them they must look at it, not hide from it.

Btw it's soooooo easy to do something like this, we should all try this without being mentally prepared... April's fool :lol:

[Hit The North]

Irrationality isn't the opposite of the instrumental rationality where identity is stripped back to mere function. Arguably, a really rational society needs to incorporate the meaning-systems that human beings invest into their life-activity.


We need to kid ourselves- take killing for example. Men have this idea that we can fight with dignity, that there's a proper way to kill someone. It's absurd. It's anesthetic; we need it to endure the bloody horror of murder. So some irrationality is good.
If an individual concocts an illusion in order to protect himself from the emotionally devastating act of murder, then that is a rational response to the situation. What is irrational is the situation itself - hence the need for compensatory illusions.


If we truly abandoned all illusions and realised what feral beasts we are and how savage this world is, we would go insane. Except the notion that we are feral by nature is itself an illusion, neglecting the feral conditions people are forced into.

Your example of the murderer concocting illusions that morally justify his act points to the possibility that human beings are not, at base, feral beasts because feral beasts need no such illusions.

[zoot_allures]

Responding to this would be easier if you could define exactly what you take "rationality" to be (and are we dealing with a simple dichotomy between rationality and irrationality, or are there other options (arationality, nonrationality, etc)?). In my view, "rationality" is simply the cognitive process of linking propositions together inferentially. I don't impose any further constraints. So, even something such as "colourless green ideas sleep furiously, therefore the moon is made of cheese" is rational in my opinion (provided it's not intended artistically, or humorously, or whatever). My conception of rationality is therefore extremely broad.

No single belief or concept is in itself rational, but any belief or concept can be thought about and justified in a rational way. There are plenty of people who support concepts such as "the nation" and "family values" and so on, and who arrive at that support using some kind of reasoning and inference. Thus, rationality doesn't guarantee that a person will arrive only at progressive beliefs (whatever you take "progressive beliefs" to be).

How much irrationality does humanity need? Well, there are all sorts of things about humanity that aren't at all rational. Rationality only obtains inside brains, and even in brains, there are obviously plenty of other things going on. A "fully rational" mind would be nothing like a human mind (and the very concept is maybe incoherent). So there's not really any question about whether we want to preserve irrationality; we simply can't get rid of it.

I'm assuming that your understanding of rationality has very little relation to mine. But, I don't know what you understanding of it is. For you, it seems that rationality is not a cognitive process but something applies to particular beliefs/concepts. In particular, it seems that "conservative concepts" don't count as rational, in your view. I don't know what you're taking "conservative concepts" to mean, though, and your ostensive definition doesn't make things much clearer. Could you clarify?


It should be obvious that the questions about science and reductionism and so on are, for me, quite separate from the questions about "rationality" in general. Regarding the "scientific-mechanical" vision you describe, that certainly sounds more like a dystopia to me... but then, I don't see what's at all "scientific" about, for example, giving people numbers rather than names. In any case, I don't think anything in modern science suggests that it's even possible for humans to "become like perfectly functioning biomechanical robots". Maybe some rather naive ideas during the earlier development of psychology suggested it, but I don't think anybody these days sees such views as tenable.

Anyway, in general, I think it's important to avoid treating science with a fundamentalist/religious attitude.

[Nevsky]

Anyway, in general, I think it's important to avoid treating science with a fundamentalist/religious attitude.

I perfectly agree with this. Sorry, if my terms where not that clear to you, I guess that when entering more philosophical subjects, my vocabulary becomes more limited and weak (english is not my first language). Anyways, most of the points you made about rationality are actually what I hoped to hear in this thread ;)1

[Jimmie Higgins]

Comrades, I'm sure that we all agree here that conservative concepts such as "the nation", "family values" etc. are severely flawed, that they stand in the way of human progress and future communist society. Said concepts were products of a time where philosophy, science, sociology and psychoanalysis weren't as advanced as they are now. It would be stupid to negate progress for the sake of irrational romanticism of past ages.

What I don't consider progressive at all, though, is scientific reductionism of humanity. There were people during the october revolution who believed that in the communist future, humans were supposed to become like perfectly functioning biomechanical robots. People wouldn't have names anymore but numbers and stuff like that (the poet and syndacalist Alexei Gastev would come to mind). While some leftist comrades advocated this vision of the future, for most people it is more of a dystopia than utopia (for example in Aldous Huxley's novel "Brave New World").

Honestly, I am opposed to this type of exclusively scientifc-mechanical centered vision of communism. I think its as pseudo-scientific and reductionist as social-darwinism. What interests me at this point is how much "irrationality" we should preserve alongside social progress. For example, names are basically an irrational construction, too; my real life name would translate to "Lionheart" or something. But nontheless, I assume that most of you would still prefer to keep a name instead of a number. It is something personal, makes you more human. Or is this already a reactionary statement?

Hmm, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think - at least for marx's "scientific socialism" that these kinds of "utopias" are inherently flawed ideas. It suggests that the problems of capitalism are "bad ideas" or "irrational ideas" in this case and so the answer is to replace bad ideas with good ones - for the good of everyone. But I think marxism places the focus on capitalism being a system and the problems resulting from how that system operates on a very basic (though often obsucred) level.

I agree that a reductionist view like you are describing seems anthithetical to communism. The whole idea is to make society work for us, not fit us into cogs in society "more rationally". Societies with minority ruling classes have to shape people's ideas and customs to fit the needs of that society, marxism and anarchism are about freeing ourselves from all that: uniting "induvidual" and "collective" because induvidual freedom would depend not on expoitation but on an society based on collective cooperation and mutual freedom.

But some of the things that the left opposes that you describe, are not opposed because they are irrational (though there is that in regards to religion among some, but I disagree with their understanding of the role that religion plays in society... which again, they tend to see as "bad ideas"). Nationalism and states and nuclear families are all social constructions that most of the radical left opposes, but this is not due to the irrationality, but due to these being part of how the ruling class organizes society and/or rallies the support for their aims.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Irrationality isn't the opposite of the instrumental rationality where identity is stripped back to mere function. Arguably, a really rational society needs to incorporate the meaning-systems that human beings invest into their life-activity.

This pretty much hits the nail on the head. Rationality in the Enlightenment tradition is often synonymous with 'instrumental rationality', a construct of classical liberalism that tends towards trying to maximize the good (and minimize the bad) in a quantitative sense.

Socialists should see this conception of 'rationality' to be itself irrational, ignoring the concrete need for humanity to behave as creative social animals. Habermas apparently has written critiques of instrumental rationality in favor of what he calls 'communicative rationality', but I haven't read any of it so I can't really vouch for it. I share his idea that Marxists should recognize the heritage of the Enlightenment and critically engage with it rather than outright rejecting it, and a developing an anthropological 'realist' conception of reason makes sense to me.

[Ocean Seal]

Having a name is not reactionary, it is a useful convention which is considerably easier to remember than a number, but for purposes of distribution and demographics we are essentially numbers. Warm fuzzy, and arguably "reactionary" traditions will be kept post-revolution, as a revolution will not dictate the cultural flow of mankind. We will throw off the warm, fuzzy, and throughly reactionary traditions which result in sexism and racism.

[Dean]

Honestly, I am opposed to this type of exclusively scientifc-mechanical centered vision of communism. I think its as pseudo-scientific and reductionist as social-darwinism. What interests me at this point is how much "irrationality" we should preserve alongside social progress. For example, names are basically an irrational construction, too; my real life name would translate to "Lionheart" or something. But nontheless, I assume that most of you would still prefer to keep a name instead of a number. It is something personal, makes you more human. Or is this already a reactionary statement?

I think you are confusing rationality with a kind of extremist scientific engineering of society. The fact that you mention Huxley's brave new world is interesting - in his story, years are measured as being "after Ford" as in Ford Motor Co. This was not a communist utopia, but a consumerist dystopia where individual feelings and drives were subsumed into a very static existence.

Is it rational to perpetually take Soma and never to explore anything but the latest contrived fad? I don't think so. We are human beings, and our lives are measured and consist of human drives, and meaning we define on our own terms. One might argue that those drives are irrational, but it is absurd to argue that creating a society ignorant of those drives is rational, too.

What is reasonable is a social system based on the free assertiveness of each member, respecting other members as much as possible. Intense technical precision and codification are great tools, but only as tools for people to use. It is not so great when it is the tools using people.

[cyu]

I'm not sure I have a good working defintion of "rational" and "irrational". What is the purpose of life? Is it to be happy? That is an emotion. If that is the purpose of life, is our goal ultimately something irrational?

If we attempt to achieve happiness through "rational" means, is that better than achieving it through "irrational" means? What is the difference?

[Luís Henrique]

Is it rational to be rational?

Why?

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Rationality would seem to me to be something that is dependent on context. What is rational in some circumstances may not be in others, and that is further complicated when one considers the question of what agencies are involved and what their respective goals and aims are. I would say that concepts such as rationality and reason are more about the means that agencies use to achieve their goals, rather than the ends that they seek to achieve.

For example, if an agent's goal is world peace, then in that context starting wars would be an irrational means to that end - unless of course, the agent's conception of "world peace" does not conflict with all humans being wiped out in a final war. What follows after such an Armageddon could technically be considered "world peace", but the difference is the gulf separating a Bond villain from a true pacifist.

[Hexen]

What I don't consider progressive at all, though, is scientific reductionism of humanity. There were people during the october revolution who believed that in the communist future, humans were supposed to become like perfectly functioning biomechanical robots. People wouldn't have names anymore but numbers and stuff like that (the poet and syndacalist Alexei Gastev would come to mind). While some leftist comrades advocated this vision of the future, for most people it is more of a dystopia than utopia (for example in Aldous Huxley's novel "Brave New World").

Well not only that, those are simply strawman depictions of what the bourgeoisie fears what a communist/post-revolutionary society would look like (based on metaphorical twistings of what egalitarianism means and such via bourgeois lens) which they use that to demonize it which is very noticeable in the media today since for one thing if you ever noticed, we never see what a post-revolutionary society truly looks like without adding all those in.

So far this tactic has worked hence one of the major reasons why communism is unappealing to people due to these fears along with "Communism cannot work because of human nature (read: Capitalist excuse for escaping responsibility for their own actions) and the only way to make it work is simply giving up our individuality (read: metaphorical definition of a "individual" capitalist) via transhumanism" (Which can actually be translated as: "I as a capitalist don't want to join society because it is my nature to rise above them and exploit them and I can't help it! ") is what scares people into accepting Capitalism as the "only functioning system but we need to get rid of a few bad apples to fix the system" (Even though they often overlook the fact it's the same tree, those good apples will eventually rot out and become bad apples...and the only way to effectively change things is to cut the tree down and tear the roots out which is capitalism).