Are there any Convincing Arguments Against Pure Rationality?!?

Question

If someone does propose something that is other than rational, are they automatically in error? If, there are legitimate circumstances when it is best to behave in an irrational mannner; how do you pursue those actions without falling into the trap of behaving whimsical?

People, I'm well aware that some behaviours may a first glance appear irrational, but in fact may not be i.e. attempts to optimise group perfomance vs. Individual. but these only SEEM that way as a result of specious/fallacious reasoning to begin with. What I am asking for is when having all the proper information, would you ever want to act in a manner that is irrational?

Answer 1

I'm not sure that the irrationality you are looking at is not largely illusory.

For example, I don't think anyone does much of anything for no reason. Even people who answer "Iunno" to what they're doing have their reasons, even if they can't articulate them or are afraid that others will consider them foolish. On this level everybody is a rationalist. But since these reasons are based on personal valuations of things, which in turn is based on highly individualized experience, many of which are often apparently completely irrational. This is probably the source of the irrationality you are seeing.

So it's not that people are acting completely irrationally when they do apparently irrational things - it's just that they are evaluating possible outcomes and likelihoods differently. Let us not forget also that different people have differing abilities to perform this kind of processing, so it's hardly fair to compare the forethought of a genius to that of an idiot.

The same thing holds for even me. Emotions are seldom rational, yet they are part of the basis on which I make my decisions. I know this. Perhaps the only reason why I seem more rational to my friends than other people is because I try and remain aware of WHEN my decisions are irrational. This doesn't stop me from making such kinds of decisions and in quite a few cases I find later that I don't even regret behaving irrationally on those occasions.

I would, in fact, be quite loathe to surrender the irrationality I still possess, even if it is more restrained that that of some other people. It is part of who I am. If everyone thought and behaved in exactly the same way, would they really be people, or just cogs and tools of their rational philosophy?

Answer 2

One example of something that seems completely irrational is religion, and yet billions find comfort in it, despite the fact that they have not a shred of evidence that their (contradictory from one relgion to the next) beliefs are true. So I suppose the argument against pure rationality is that people take comfort from irrationality at times because, in my opinion, it removes self-responsibility from them and puts it on the shoulders of a deity of some sort.

Answer 3

An argument against the possibility for anything like pure rationality is Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", in which he tried to find a perfect "atomic" language, that is, the most basic, unambiguous elemental language. He couldn't. I mention this because your question begins with an impossible concept, "pure rationality".
And your question also asks for a rational answer in support of extra-rational behavior, which would, by implication, make the extra-rational behavior rational, when considered in light of the answer you're requesting.
Sure, behavior that seems irrational according to one measure might be rational when considered by another measure. I used to tell my ex that her attachment to a want, despite its seeming irrationality, was itself a reason to go with it, for the rational goal of maintaining her psychological health.

Answer 4

The elimination of spontaneity and experience.Rationality leaves so much to be desired, it is but one way of finding out about the world. Taste and touch are two ways that tell us volumes of info about what the world is like but not one thought is involved. If you really want understand the world, then you have to integrate more perspectives than simply the "logical/rational" one. Its just that the rational model provides certainty and security as each fact is provable, that is why it is so attractive but it is ony one way of investigating.

Answer 5

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Emerson

People like to drop out one word, it vindicates their foolishness.

Rationality hasn't yet been defined here, but I'll just go with it.

Here's my gut response. Take the case of Solomon. Two women are fighting over a baby, each claiming to be its mother...

Solomon: Give me the baby. Here's a sword. Let's just divide the baby evenly so you both are satisfied.

*PAUSE*

Now, is he being irrational? Let's find out:

*PLAY*

Solomon: Let's see, shall I cut straight down or sideways?
Mother #2: It's hers!
Solomon (pointing to #2): Give her the baby.

In this case I'd say Solomon lived up to his reputation for being wise. But it wasn't until *after* the fact that we could judge something rational or not. Here, it was eminently rational - and shrewd.

Answer 6

I think ultimately the greatest answer to pure rationalism is the fact of death. Death is unknown and our short existence implies a meaning rationality has as of yet to explain.

Answer 7

The only thing to counter pure irrationality is pure irrationality. As such no argument that stems from irrationality, would make sense thus making it ineffective. So the short answer is NO.

Answer 8

The only arguments I know of against pure rationale is religion and emotional logic. Religion is actually a subset of emotional logic. I think that answers all your questions.

Answer 9

They won't be convinving to anyone who uses pure rationality in the first place.

Answer 10

The only arguments against pure rationality would be purely irrational.

But, then you were expecting that.