.
Rationalism Intro 1
Rationalism as logic of Metaphysics
Human Made logic made into Natural Law
French Enlightenment not enlightening / Rationalism is anything but Common Sense
Rationalism is Slavery to Words used as 'Natural Law'
Generally the 17th century French Enlightenment in is recognized as a KEY paradigm shift in Western thought, in rational view giving way to sheer wisdom.
IF it is seen as a paradigm shift.
One that gave room in The New World to the protestant branch of catholicism.
Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, ....were not unlike catholics in general,
but MUCH more agressive in 'mission' of their enlightenment world view to 17th century rationalism.
First especially black Africans suffered (emotionless slavery), but in the 21st century The christian Western World fights Islam with War on Terrorism.
Ages later a famous presbyteran is J. Edgar Hoover, who made the FBI
into a uncontrollable secretly operating tool for fighting 'radicals' and 'left-wing' organizations. A kind of 'ninjas in black suit' for killing common sense.
Protestant churchleaders worshipped the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle (pro slavery, pro superiority).
That resulted in an ethics of Individualism/Egoism.
Once such addictive view has 'settled' itself in some culture, it only grows stronger. Resisting cultures are at any cost step by step choked through brain-washing. Inevitably that creates hero's like Osama bin Laden.
NO abstract logic becomes an evil phantom by itself, that depends on the use.
Rationalism immediately became fishy, because the hidden purpose was fishy.
That was continuing of slavery. Or in rational term first called industrialization, and then management.
BUT ...there's nothing wrong with people using rational logic, only with people using this as ALMOST ONLY logic
'Rational' myth:
Rationalism in ancient society was used as view by
philosophers who were sceptical toward experience, like for instance Plato.
Henk Tuten: bullshit, in ancient society 'rationalism' didn't exist, and Plato was very much common sense.
Better to mention his hated student Aristotle who believed in 'spirits' |
|
.
.
Industrialism was a way to continue Slavery
Rationalism Introduction 2
After Enlightenment Rationalism was there, because Enlightenment thinkers posed:
- rationalism (or empiricism): a secure basis for knowledge of the world
- (rational) 'science' offers 'understanding' (an Enlightenment invention)
- human (rational) reason reliable in exploring the truth of nature
- certainty may be found in the laws of mathematics and (rational) logic. |
It's like a bad commercial for Rationalism
But don't make the mistake to think that Enlightenment thinkers were 'bad' people.
'Rational' thinking only perfectly suited in everybody present egoism/egocentrism. And the above mentioned
'thinking' is quite selfcentered.
This for social affairs dubious logic 'rationalism' since Enlightenment settled itself in the Western World
and got terribly strong. |
The 20th century philosopher Marcuse wrote in One Dimensional Man:
[The philosopher`s job is] to understand [the world in which we live] in terms of what it has done to man,
and what it can do to man.
In this article I'll try to follow the words of Marcuse, and defend my view that Enlightenment was NOT enlightening.
.
.
Enlightenment cleared the way for Industrialism
Rationalism Introduction 3
I asked myself the question: what IF Enlightenment was only partly enlightening? Because its merits are based on a quite circular definition.
'Rationalism' created the perfect conditions in 'thinking' for Industrialism. This based on the observation that skill climbed like a star since that period end 17th century, but that on the contrary ethical wisdom largely remained a dark area.
Improvement is mainly seen in technical detailing (skill), and as a consequence of that even in exploring space. BUT principally that knowledge was
already implied in Cartesian math. It only needed thorough and tedious refining (computers proved to be excellent in this mechanical reasoning). Later I found out that partly Nietzsche already with all his might tried to warn for the same mistake
It need not be that bad, many of my insights I'm sure can be found as well in Zen-Buddhism.
My doubt proved to lead to remarkable insights about the difference between western and eastern dualism. I convinced myself, now I'll set out to convince you.
|
.
.
Rationalism neglects emotions and takes skill for wisdom
Rationalism Introduction End
One hint: Think of how Mandelbrot pictures (see below) can take enormous skill (like all fractal presentations), BUT don't take
very special knowledge. The skill part came within reach through computers and inkjet color printers. NOT because IBM, Microsoft, HP and other multinationals have a hotline to truth.
.
Move Mouse over Picture
.
.
.
The New Science
Compass for finding Money 1
At present without thinking one uses the notion 'rational'. But this word in the present meaning exists only since "the Enlightenment" end 17th century.
This stream of thought was triggered by the 'New Science' at the end of the Renaissance of thinkers like Newton, Galileo and Boyle. Newton gave the start for space-travelling (gravity), Galileo invented the
bricks of the universe (atoms), and without Boyle no 'boiling'(gas-pressure laws). It heavily diminished accepting emotions, until then very important .
Then leading philosophers like Leibniz near the end of Enlightenment regarded moods and resulting emotions as nothing more than an expression of logic (that influence is still felt at present and surely not in a positive way)
Leibniz used the rigorous standards of formal reasoning in a brave effort to 'understand' everything (origin of the myth 'understanding'?). But he had his value, and was the founder of the simplifying cartesian plane. Only his thinking seems
a bit oversimplifying things.
A suitable cleverly used conceptual scheme, Leibniz believed, could serve as a trustworthy 'picture of reality'. But 'clever' by Enlightenment thinkers was
seen as sophisticated use of only rational logic.
What Leibniz expressed came to be known as 'rationalism'. Largely the essentials of that way of reasoning about 'reality' since then stayed upright.
Leibniz and Wolff heavily influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States.
The 'Law of Nations' was strongly influenced by the German 'rationalists' Leibnitz and Christian von Wolff. Much more than on the ideas of Locke.
Nowadays the meaning of the word 'rational' came to point at logical behavior
but then it stressed the rock-hard belief that the view of the world rested on unchangeable laws of nature (in fact in majority temporary Roman Christian views).
Empirically to observe signs of this nature
gave through 'logic' a la Descartes a clue about these laws, and the inherent ethics.
.
.
Metaphysics became branch of rationalism specialized in 'souls'
Compass for finding Money 2
As a consequence of the new science, philosophy was split in two disciplines: empiricism and rationalism on one side and methaphysics or pure rationalism on the other.Empiricism and rationalism differed only in the importance given to experience, methaphysics didn't use experience at all.
The new science was undermining the validity of the proven 'logic of evolution' 'common sense'. People in an age of strong absolutism and god-belief.
don't throw away all their certainties. So they constructed a ratio-worship around important common sense basics
that was BOTH absolute and like a religion (Immanuel Kant called such man-made basics 'a priori'). In fact especially Kant made 'rational science' the new religion.
Using 1 absolute logic versus the relative cocktail of logics 'common sense'.
Absolute truth (or human knowledge) became a replacement for god-belief.
It is no coincidendence that later Kant in case of pure reason speaks about "theological knowledge".
The resulting system of thought, however liberating, was unwillingly a source of dogmatism.
Emotions as trigger of Reactions in the Western World more and more were forced to lead a dormant life, and hided in art, children-literature, street-culture and anarchism.
..
.
From bodycount to money counting
Compass for finding Money End
Rationalism without emotions gave us nazism, communism, capitalism and the power thinking that caused 2 world-wars.
It gave rise to the typical arrogant human view that sharks were killing machines (just an example).
Capitalism changed the majority of people in leading circles in economic sharks.
I looked through Middle Age eyes to racing cars. I noticed that during a speed race the crowd was kept far away from these heavily armoured extremely agile huge monsters. The drivers, sunk away in the back of the monsters, in some way
control the animals and keep them most of the time within the racing course.
At feeding time the owner of the monster sent a group of around 10 specially trained and savely dressed males. These feed it straight into its stomach with some special kind of drink. Roaring the monster takes part in the match again. After feeding the men go back into a cage called "garage". Drivers risk death and are wearing safety dress. But off course they are very proud to die for such a
great crowd.
Though after a terrible accident seemingly ripped apart, the next spectacle the monster is totally fit again. Drivers are not always that lucky. Although these monsters are obviously awfully dangerous, for some reason these in different bright colors painted animals are amazingly popular.
The owner of the animal that is in front after about ninenety minutes is seen as winner. But most attention goes
to the extremely well-paid slaves who compete as life risking drivers, they are cheered by the crowd as gods.
Cars kill far more people than sharks do. And the number of people swimming before beaches visited by sharks, is not that different from people taking part in traffic.
Most people almost faint of respect when they are allowed to touch a racing car, but shout for help when they see a shark. Why are in modern times racing cars seen as popular gladiators, and sharks as monsters?
In the 21-th century emotions are refound. Science discovers amongst others that sharks are amazing largely un-understood
intelligent creatures. Certainly not aiming for economic exploitation of the universe.
It's in the line of expectation to see a return of the almost lost value 'respect' (the emotion respect), as partial replacement for the
logic value of money or wealth. |
..
.
Rationalism, taking a very limited view on Logic and Intelligence
Rationalism is NOT all of intelligence 1
Discussions
often mistakenly focus on normal facts. These are not essential, and neither is
truth or falsity of the way in which they were derived. This common trick
only creates a fog around the view.
Any
knowledge system consist of basic facts or basic presumptions as point of
departure of a view. All other facts are derived from the basic facts using
that view.
In
mathematical functions nobody sees the position of the axis-system as
essential. It is the shape of the curve that matters. In the same way basic
presumptions are nothing more than fixation-point of a view. They add nothing
to the shape of that view.
The
statement that something 'is a fact' only has meaning if the view used in this
case is known. Using a rational view has become so common, that facts are
presumed to be rational.But
rationalism only is the plane formed by the following view: IF a=b AND b=c THEN
a=c. Two mistakes are made:
1. Taking rational logic to be the only logic
2. Mistaking intelligence to be only logic reasoning
Using rational
logic works well if a,b and c are data, BECAUSE then a, b and c are all member of the rational numbers (the hidden presumption).But what
if a, b and c are emotions, and if emotions cannot be reduced to rational
numbers? Because that's exactly what one of the early rationalists presumed (Leibniz).
Only he didn't prove it, or derived it using rational view (logic) from basic
presumptions. Leibniz believed in an absolute
truth that could be 'understood', or the truth that 'the all' is rational (and inherently limited, only he never said so).
..
.
Emotions differ from rational values
Rationalism is NOT all of intelligence End
a=GOOD
combined with knowing that a is an emotion raises the question: for whom? What
is good for A might be BAD for B. So what means a=GOOD in case of emotions?
Only that something raises emotion a in A.
It might raise emotion a in B as well, but not the same one as for A.
In
this case the link (a,A) and (a,B) seems essential., (a,A) is GOOD and (a,B) is
BAD. So if something is a member of A THEN the resulting emotion is GOOD, and if that
something is a member of B then in case of a it feels BAD.
Then emotions are not simple absolute data,
but they are relative.
That's
common knowledge, but difficult in straightforward rationalism. Otherwise
everybody would love the same person. Very good for his or her sex life, but
also very unpractical.
Accepting emotions is believing in relative truth. Why is it then that so many dogma's
are found around religion? Because religion is the formal part of belief, it
says nothing about believing itself. Only the word 'religion' became almost
similar to god-belief.
..
.
History: Descartes (there at least is one certainty, everything becomes history)
History 1
The French in the first place MATHEMATICIAN Descartes got world-famous as founder of rationalism
by extracting indications about such absolute laws from nature in his typical method (analysis). That's why this stream of thought in America is
sometimes called French Enlightenment.
Under the assumption of continuity of the laws of nature, he cut natural object in ever smaller pieces.
Jigsaw puzzles of those pieces became his truth.
Try to cut a human in small pieces, and then to construct the living being again. But Descartes attended surgical sessions (see picture of Rembrandt),
purely with the aim to discover the building method.
Present surgery mainly still uses this method.
This method lead to great accomplishments, but at the same time is rather limited. It is based on a technical way of insight (way of understanding), and causes
people to work according to methods that they don't fully understand (i.e. surgical operations).
The technical side of 'rational' research fitted men better than women (that's why since then temporarily this sex got in 2nd place. The man with the high pitched voice who wrote in the mid 20th century
the song "It's a man's world" was more right than he ever would have thought.).
Descartes believed that mathematics transcended the senses, contributing to an overall mathematical order to the universe that is INDEPENDENT of senses.
He said that humans are somehow able of doubt. Thus, the famous logical statement "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). However, the I is not a physical "i", it is an immaterial mind that is identified by "I".
Cartesian Dualism is the theory that there are two fundamental types of entities : mind and matter (origin of the mind body problem). Physical bodies can be expressed in the dimensions breadth, width and depth. Minds however are entirely immaterial and non-spatial; they are the "I" Descartes refers to. In his view the mind is the
only entity that can think. Stones can't 'think, this was the origin of the myth 'understanding' and the undervalue-ing of
'intuition'.In fact stones have intuition (they react on sense experiences), and a memory. Descartes' cogito argument is used by him to prove the 'consciousness' of the human mind.
| Unknowingly Descartes supplied the logic that the Roman Catholic Church terribly needed. This Roman Catholic religion had been used to save the Roman lifestyle based on slavery, by seperating soul affairs from often bloody body affairs. This attitude forced Western Church to practice 'mind-massaging' and stay away from 'dirty hands' politics. |
..
.
Method of Descartes: Rational Apes
History 2
In short, the method of Descartes designed rational apes in 5 steps :
(1) apes that accept as "truth" only 'rational units (IDEAS)
(2) apes that break every problem down into 'eatable' IDEAS (rational analysis)
(3) apes building a 'rational' whole 'synthesis' (shit?) from those eatable parts (supposing 'continuity')
(4) apes that use juggling ('deduction') with 'rational units' as a means to come to new 'rational' trics
I.e. a 'rational ape' is 'rational' (surprise). Descartes doesn't seem arrogant to me, so this
in essence arrogant assumption ('rational' humans deciding that truth is 'rational') must have been
the spirit of the time
And (5) apes with an un-physical' mind' (and repeating the a priori of the Catholic Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AC).
Looking at this Descartes proved himself to be a rational ape, but not a pure rationalist
(metaphysicist). Not like Hume believing in analysis based
on praxis only, but still giving it a strong role.
In fact seen through 21st century eyes Descartes use a spreadsheet-like approach.
This works as long as the researched phenomena are 'rational ('smooth'), and can be expressed
in a 'rational' mathematical function. BUT but not if they can't be expressed in
mathematical functions or if these are not differential or not integrable.
So Descartes truth was in fact a 'rational' mathematical one. Simple phenomena fit without
problem in integrable mathematical functions, and fitted his idea of 'clear and distinct' ('rational').
More complex phenomena were simply ignored, this simplifying of reality is the biggest threat posed by 'rationalism'.
The real advantage of rational apes was twofold, and not 'rational' at all:
1. Having killing gunpowder weapons (flying death)
2. Being resistent to 'selfmade' killing diseases
Nietzsche was the first important philosopher who really saw the danger of 'rational apes'. But his not deliberate misleading
use of the word "religious" one generally thought that he only meant Christian Apes.
He attacked the sect 'church' (not belief) as main source of dogmatism, but without real reason he got known as enemy of 'church'.
His Superman mixed Rational Ape and Common Sense Ape. The concept meant things like trust in own talents and use of own creativity.
..
.
History: Rationalism
History 3
The term Continental Rationalism traditionally refers to a 17th century philosophical movement starting with Descartes,
that saw 'ratio' as 'metaphysical' and emotion as only physical (animal residu).
It soon got the name Enlightenment, and started with famous names like Descartes and Kant.
After Descartes, several dozen scientists and philosophers continued his teachings throughout continental Europe,
and accordingly were titled Cartesians.
Some of them strayed little from the scientific and metaphysical theories of Descartes.
Others used his theories in Calvinistic theology, making this more .... rational.
A few philosophers influenced by Descartes were more original and these people are included under the more general title rationalists.
These principle rationalists include the Dutch philosopher Spinoza, the Frenchman Malebranche, the German Leibniz,
and the German Christian Wolff.
Maybe Wolff was responsible for the neglect of emotion in rationalism, for along with Leibniz this influential philosopher
in his 'Wolffian theory of reality' saw emotion as purely logical ('theological rationalism').
Rationalists believed in:
A truth deduced by mathematical reasoning from innate ideas (a kind of theoretical axioms as opposed to experience). I.e. infinite perfection.
..
.
History: Empiricism
History End
Empiricism in the 17th century was a rival movement, it was said to be founded by the Englishman John Locke and therefore is often named British Empiricism.
In one aspect Locke without doubt makes sense: he said "all knowledge comes through the senses". He did't believe in immaterial 'spirits', 'angels', 'gods'
On two key points principal Empiricism differs from real Rationalism.
1. Empiricists rejected proof by only mathematical methods (fantasy in logical shape), and believed in perceptions and emotions.
2. Empiricists also used deductive reasoning, but they more often used the inductive method promoted by the British Francis Bacon.
Kant tried to take a position between empiricism and rationalism. This way he constructed
a totally weird mix of empiricism and rationalism. Experimental observation based on Roman Christian a priori.
Difficult to observe anything about blacks if the a priori coming from Immanuel Kant is: blacks are ugly and stupid
Inherently Kant gave his blessing to Slavery, invented by other fundamentalist protestants (Dutch Calvinists).
..
.
Rationalism hates the Relativism in Discontinuity
Relativism and Absolutism 1
Rationalism as initiated by Descartes is at present generally seen by philosophers as being a revolution
in science, or a paradigm shift. But in evolutionary eyes it is far too early to say that this phenomenon will stick.
Amongst others this way of thinking reintroduced the use of Aristotelan ideas in Western Europe. Especially it itroduced the idea
consciousness
as representing 'imagination'.
In the world of math Descartes is known as founder of analysis (think of notions like differentiating and integrating).
In fact he was the godfather of computermath, because he showed that continuous functions can without problem be divided in minute parts.
And that afterwards the same function can be constructed from those tiny subfunctions.
Analysis of objects in tiny subparts as was done in rationalism doesn't easily lead to overview.
Even worse, in practice this method was applied too on most discontinuous functions. Mathematical functions
are artificial, and discontinuity in real life generally asks for other methods.
Empiricism had the same weakness, but contrary to rationalism it accepted emotions (though as subjective).
In rationalism pure thought was considered objective ( because of intuition of absolute truth) and experience as subjective. Empericism took exactly the
counterposition. In the middle was Kant, who tried to prove that both views were objective
(that's why he invented the dubios idea 'a priori').
At present philosophers generally consider both pure thoughts as thought triggered by experiences as subjective. But 'absolutists' (like Popper) believe
in the existence of only 1 basis-set of laws of nature. Relativists (like Kuhn) believe slightly different, and presume
laws to be dependent of the used system of thought. So Popper with his Critical Rationalism stayed closer to his in principle dogmatic 17th century collaegues.
Despite his sympathetic sides he chose in essence to believe in an absolute truth behind the manifold
subjective interpreted phenomenons.
..
.
Rationalism loves the Absolutism in Religion
Relativism and Absolutism End
In the 18th century the christian church too came to embrace rationalism. Amongst others that is recognized in the fanatism to convert others to this belief,
because of belief in 1 truth. The trust in own beliefs is not typically rational, but is caused by its dogmatic traits.
This trait fitted church perfectly (church seen as religion, not as belief). In the 16th century in this way the Spanish without thinking destroyed a whole system of thought in South-America.
Many wars initiated in 2 conflicting truths.
At present rationalism as initiated by Descartes is generally seen by philosophers as a revolution in thought or a paradigm shift).
But seen through evolutionary eyes it's much too soon to conclude that this emotionless in argument way of thinking will stay.
Amongst others this view replaced in Western Europe the Aristotelan way of thinking. Especially it replaced
the notion 'imagination' (the ability to fantasize) as a way to present consciousness.
Destroying statues may have been a way to destruct remaining consciousness.
..
.
Skill versus Knowledge
Skill and Knowledge / Body and Soul
Without doubt human knowledge improved since end 17th century. But not that much as generally thought. What improved tremendously are particular skills. The methods of Descartes were perfected and showed amazing results in almost every science. Sure sharks are still superior in man-to-man fight, but no match for nuclear bombs.
Knowledge however mainly improved through Darwin and the resulting discovery of DNA.
To be honest Euclidian certainty was shocked in geometry during the first half of the nineteenth century, by Lobachevsky, Bolyai, and Riemann. They demonstrated that if one of Euclid's axioms (that parallel lines, when extended, cannot cross) was abandoned, other geometries could be devised which represent different spatial worlds. In physics the same was done by Einstein's relativity theory, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and the replacement of Newtonian physics by quantum mechanics. All of these were first sign of relativism, and the shortcomings of absolutism (or objectivism).
But seen from space not much happened on earth.
Try to see the road to wisdom as forever widening, and improving skills as detailing on a narrowing road. Airplanes reach new destinies , while bicycling mainly is sympathetic. Both are infinite processes, only one ends in every time in a bigger space, and the other in a point
..
.
Enlightenment didn't enlight Emotion
This new era, a new scientific paradigm, was called
Enlightenment. That indicates the dawning of a bright future
at the end of the Renaissance after the spiritually dark Middle Ages. When asked in a newspaper what this word exactly meant even Kant could only speculate.
Anyway it is far too early too conclude that this was a succesfull new direction in evolution. Humans count the days, but evolution
works with ages.
Evident is that in leading circles ratio became much more important than emotion, and that technics progressed much faster than knowledge. The 17th century in Europe is also called "Age of Absolutism".
The 21th century applies for the name "Age of Terrorism".
At present still philosopers are debating the difference between absolute and relative view.
Indeed, just like at the start of Enlightenment.
The Talmud: We don't see things as they are, but as we are
All my referential articles were on Internet. I used referential sources only
to check my points of view, never to copy pieces of it.
Anyway I hate articles with miles of references.
Zarah2nd, May 2003.
.
