In-Depth Articles
Why Begin?
In Good Company
A Little Humor

Quotations
Thoreau
William James
Einstein
Gandhi
Ken Wilber
Rumi
Nelson Mandela
Thomas Merton
Helen Luke

Archives

Chapter Eleven
May 2008

Are you Rational?

We brought two German Sheppard pups home through the years, one at 8 weeks of age, the other at 10, and began the delightful and difficult process of bringing them into our world, teaching them to fit in—to act in ways that seemed best to us. That’s the key, isn’t it, to get a dog to do what you want, to follow the rules you lay down, so that your life is easier, so that they don’t do things that disrupt the life you wish to live—therefore allowing you to enjoy their company while experiencing the minimum amount of hassle. Of course, we told ourselves that this was “best for them.”

Dante was the epitome of a trustworthy and loyal friend. He almost always did what he was supposed to do, seemed to take great delight in doing what we had defined as the right thing—even if went against his natural instincts. He had a fierce commitment to fulfilling his duties. Was this rational behavior?

Shakti was really smart, learned fast, learned to fit in, to follow the rules—and gradually learned to get what she wanted within those rules. She became quite good at it. At times we wondered who was managing whom in the household. She would act like she wanted to be petted in order to get our attention, then promptly switch and ask for a treat—the petting being a tactic to get something else, the treat. I wonder if Shakti was rational.

Thought Experiment
Before you read on, pause for a moment and ask yourself: What does it mean to “be rational?” What do other people mean by this?

Four Distinct Views of Being Rational

Before you protest too loudly that only humans are “rational,” perhaps we should consider just what being rational means—for there is great confusion around the use of the words Rational and Reason. There are at least four distinct ways these words have been used in describing an attribute that lies at the very heart of what it means to be human.

1) When Plato focused on Reason as the great pillar of Western thought, he seems to have meant that by discussing, considering, and reflecting upon the important issues of life, one could come to a clear and true understanding. However, this truth for Plato was grounded in an Unseen Order, the world of Pure Forms. And crucially, it was not based on the evidence of our senses, or on an experience of the material world, for he realized that the senses can be deceiving. Rather, through discourse and reflection, reason would lead to an intuitive insight into the true nature of reality beyond the material realm.   In essence, one could come to know the deepest truths of the Unseen Order by use of a human faculty called Reason, but this reason was not separate from intuition, but the path to its full experience. Further, there was no conflict whatsoever between Plato’s Reason and an Unseen Order—in fact, the source of knowledge that Reason was to discover was the Unseen Order of the world of Pure Ideas or Pure Form.

2) Some Rationalists, beginning in the 17th century and culminating in Kant, were attempting to establish a basis for human action without reference to Plato’s World of Pure Forms, or an established religious tradition. Their use of “rational” came to mean that rather than rush to act on one’s whims, a rational being was one who could stop and consider the consequences of one’s actions. Rather than being led unconsciously around by one’s passions, a rational being would also consider longer term goals and values such as; the kind of person one wanted to be, how one’s actions would affect others, and how various goals were in conflict—and therefore had to be weighed against each other.

For Kant, Reason gave direct access to and compelling justification for the duties and responsibilities that his culture defined as right and good. Accepting this guidance, he maintained that to give in to one’s whims and passions was not rational, whereas doing one’s duty within the culture was a supremely rational path. Kant’s rationality did not preclude an Unseen Order—in fact, it make explicit room for its existence—but he based his guide for human action on cultural values instead. (Kant did not deal with the fact that the cultural teachings he espoused arose from the Judeo-Christian experience of a Transcendent Order. He seemed to take his culture’s values and meanings simply as “Given Truth.”)

3) Another group of 18th century Enlightenment thinkers, inspired by Spinoza and Leibniz and exemplified by Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson, agreed that Reason was the primary tool to be used in making the important decisions of life, but their concern was more to jar their readers out of blind obedience to authority, and even to one’s cultural heritage. Their Rationalism meant that, rather than follow the rules and injunctions of one’s church or culture, a rational being would use reason to discover for themselves the right way to live. A rational being could stop, reflect, and think through issues—could listen to the arguments of others, consider all the evidence that was available, and come to an independent judgment as to what seemed true and right.

This form of Rationalism did not preclude the use of intuition, but in fact depended upon it. Nor did it not preclude the existence of an Unseen Order It simply refused to accept established authority’s right to interpret that Unseen Order for the individual. A good example of this is Voltaire. Although often viewed by history as an atheist, such was not the case. For him, the experience of an Unseen Presence was the ultimate product of Reason itself: “It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason.” This group of thinkers, who strongly affected the American Revolution, championed Reason, but not in opposition to an Unseen Order, for most were Deists who believed that God had set the world in motion, and that Reason itself was the greatest gift which this Creator God had bestowed on humankind.

4. Finally, some thinkers in the early 20th Century came to equate the idea of being “rational’ with the idea that something can be demonstrated by logic, that an answer can be shown to any thinking person’s satisfaction to be true by a logical proof. Mathematics by this time had become so successful that it was hoped that all of life could be made subject to the same logic that prevails in math. This led to logical empiricism, which in its simplest form holds that all real truth must be subject to logical proof, and if it isn’t, then it is not true. This approach is useful in math and science, and for a narrow range of things in daily life—things that can be put into simple categories, such as: Would you rather receive 50 dollars or 100 dollars for the jacket you are selling? It is both “logical” and “rational” to choose the 100 dollars—and this can be presented persuasively to almost anyone. But few things in life can be defined so simply, this kind of 1 + 1 = 2 situation just does not exist with most of the questions we encounter in our lives. And at that point rational and logical part ways—sometimes dramatically.

However, this conflating of logical and rational is a modern habit that has caused much mischief. Some logical empiricists might have thought that by accepting only things that were “logical” as true, there would eventually arise a worldview that could be proved to be true. Instead, this approach was shown to most observers satisfaction be fatally flawed, and has been largely abandoned in philosophy. Yet its influence lingers on in the modern mind, aided and abetted by those who would like to believe that their worldview is logical, supported by some kind of unassailable “proof.” This has culminated in a “street version” of the word rational, held by many, that suggests that being rational means there is logical proof for a position. (Amusingly, if someone is challenged to show the proof for something they are asserting to be “rational,” that person can only fall back on a claim of authority—it is true because I say so, or because some important person I know says it is true. In asking this kind of question many times, I have yet to hear a remotely plausible “proof” for a particular worldview, or even for answers to simple questions we face every day in the living of our lives.)

Logical Materialism

Empiricism is a theory that claims that all we know or can know must start with an experience of our senses—sight, sound, touch, taste, or smell. The theory began its modern Western journey with John Locke, who thought that each child was born as a “blank slate” upon which experience wrote all that would be known. However, Locke was not a strict empiricist in today’s sense, for he believed that knowledge of God’s existence, which he affirmed, was gained through intuition rather than through the senses. And importantly, Locke’s empiricism was developed in opposition to the rationalism of his day, which held that there were innate truths that could not be discovered through the senses.

Empiricism and Rationalism remained competing views of the world for several hundred years, but were gradually brought together, finally resulting in William James radical empiricism, which grew out of his conversations with Charles Piece about the need to be more pragmatic in dealing with what we know. In essence, James held that we can and should interact with the material world as we perceive it, and not worry so much about explaining to ourselves why this seems to work. But this is crucial: James saw clearly that his empiricism did not preclude other ways of knowing. In dealing with the material world, he said, let’s do what works. But let us not jump to the conclusion that we can create theories based on our successes in dealing with the material realm that we think can explain things in other areas of life, such as the spiritual dimension, for which these empirical techniques are not well suited. Thus, although James was a radical empiricist, he could write:

Our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence, but apply the right stimulus, and at a touch they are there is all their completeness…

No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness . . . disregarded.  How to regard them is the question, for they are so discontinuous with ordinary consciousness.

They forbid a premature closing of our accounts with reality.

In spite of William James’s advice, it was probably inevitable that a simplistic version of empiricism would hook up with the “street” version of rationalism. This happened partly because the empiricism of philosophy migrated to science, where it yielded the extremely valuable idea in the scientific method that all theories must be testable for their effficacy by physical observation of the material world. In science, whose mission it is to understand this material world, this is a crucial foundational principle. However, when this idea migrated back to philosophy, and began to be applied to concepts and ideas having to do with beliefs, values, emotions, and philosophical concepts, it created more confusion than clarity—and lead to what I have come to think of as Logical Materialism.

This is the modern reductionist "myth" which begins: Once upon a time a world came to be that was made up only of matter. This world is the world you live in, my child, and here only things that can be measured by instruments are “real,” and only events that can be duplicated in a lab are “true.” When this myth is joined with the assertion that if something is “rational,” then somewhere, somehow, there are logical, factual arguments that prove it—the result is Logical Materialism.

This theory has its adherents, and as with every theory, it deserves its place at the table of human discourse. But some of its proponents would have us believe that this worldview has in some way been proven to be true—is somehow supported by the facts. But nothing could be further from the truth. The logical materialist worldview, like every other, is based on a set of assumptions, which are metaphysical in nature, and only if one accepts these metaphysical assumptions through an act of faith do any of its conclusions follow.

To be as cleat as possible, there is not one piece of evidence that logical materialism is true. Not one! There are metaphysical theories which hold that it is true—but they are not scientific, nor logical, and certainly not demonstrated by the facts. They are metaphysical, speculative theories.

There is much evidence that there is “material stuff” in the world, and that it has a crucial role to play in human life. There is a great deal of evidence that this “stuff” usually functions in an orderly way. But there is not one piece of evidence that something beyond the material does not exist—and there certainly is no proof for such a claim.  For instance, there is no evidence that consciousness did not precede the existence of the material realm; or that guiding principles do not exist separate from the material world itself; or that human life does not have the tendency to move is some meaningful direction; or that some creative force was not present at some point in the past, or is present today; or that there are not values transcendent to each individual’s point of view that can be discerned by an attentive observer.

These are all metaphysical theories—attempting to explain the ultimate nature of existence, of reality. Just as the claim that matter is the measure of all things is a metaphysical theory, so are each of the above. (And of course, each of the above is a separate theory, so anyone can believe one of them, and not the others.) A rational being can accept one or more of these views, or reject them all, for there is no proof that any one of them is true, or not true. Each has some evidence in its favor, and each has been supported—and is supported today—by wise and thoughtful people. Thus a rational person can choose to believe—or not believe—any of them, without fear of any facts proving them to be wrong. This is necessarily true, because the very nature of metaphysical theories is that they go beyond the facts, must go beyond the facts, for they provide the framework within which any set of “facts” make sense.

Is there a Conflict between Reason and Intuition, Rationality and the Unseen?

All of this is important because in many arguments today over worldviews, over metaphysical theories, a trump card often thrown on the table is the cry “you are not being rational,” or “reason demands.” With these assertions, an attempt is often being made to diminish or dismiss the importance of intuition, or to assert that there is not an Unseen Order. The contention seems to be that only a materialist worldview is “rational,” and supported by “reason”—with no recognition that this is true only if one begins with an act of faith in favor of the materialist myth about the nature of the world and of reality. For instance, without an act of faith that everything can be explained through an examination of the workings of the material world, these assertions diminishing or denying intuition and the Unseen are completely unsupportable.

Once it becomes clear that all such assertions start with an act of faith about metaphysics, about worldviews, then the recognition dawns that materialists are simply asserting that everyone should accept their myth as the one true myth—as do fundamentalists of all types—and that we should base our lives upon their particular act of faith about the nature of reality. There is no rationality here, nor reason, simply unproved metaphysical assertion.

Even more, as the history of the words “reason” and “rational” make clear, only a very small number of people—and only in the last few decades—have chosen to believe that “reason” or “being rational” were in conflict with an Unseen Order, or with the role of intuition in human life. On the contrary, from Plato to Einstein, and embracing countless philosophers and scientists including Kant, Locke, Heidegger, William James, Alfred North Whitehead, Descartes, Newton, Jefferson, Voltaire, and so many other names it is impossible to begin to recount them, there is no conflict between Reason and Intuition in human history. Nor is there a conflict between Rationality and the existence of an Unseen Order. On the contrary, Reason, Rationality, Intuition, and an Unseen Order have usually gone hand in hand in the worldviews of most great thinkers.

The crucial point is that most things in life are just not subject to logical answers. Logic has an important role to play, but human life quickly moves beyond logic, with the influx of feelings, values, meanings, beliefs, intuition, and the necessity of relating to one’s culture.  And wisely, Reason and Rationality have made room for, and even at times given a central role to, these factors, and many others, in their understanding of an examined life.

The Marriage of Reason and Intuition, Rationality and the Unseen

If reason and rationality do not rest primarily on logic, then just what do these words mean? As I have reflected on this question, read the views of scholars through the centuries, and surveyed my bemused friends, I have come to see ever more clearly just how much confusion resides here. These words have meant very different things in different ages, but each definition and meaning still has some purchase today—mingling and overlapping with all the others in a crazy quilt of often conflicting and incompatible understandings. It is no small irony that all this confusion is attached to words that are supposed to establish the basis for the clarity of human thought.

So let us venture into this jungle of confusion with an attempt to clarify the meaning of reason and rationality in their valuable forms—in the way these words truly do represent something at the heart of what it means to be human, and what it means to live a thoughtful and examined life.

 I have come to understand reason and rationality to mean:

1) Rather than follow every whim or urge or desire that arises, being rational means to step back for a moment and consider the consequences of one’s actions, to take a broader perspective than the urge of the moment—and especially to consider how actions or decisions will fit into the whole of one’s life.

2) Both reason and rationality suggest a willingness to look at all of the information that is available, to consider all of the evidence and all of the arguments as best one can before making a decision. This means being willing to weigh and consider everything—giving appropriate weight to logical arguments, hard facts, values, beliefs, the kind of person one wishes to be, how a decision will effect others, cultural injunctions, intuitions—everything.

3) Using reason means that one will not follow authority blindly—whether religious, political or cultural—reserving the right to question authority, to subject it to scrutiny, to examine its assertions to determine if they hold up to the knowledge and understanding of this time and place. Using reason does not prevent the recognition, with Edmund Burke, that traditions that have stood the test of time deserve attention and respect. At the same time, reason requires that each new generation, and perhaps each person, should ask of authority: Do you still serve the highest good? Has time passed you by? Have you been taken over by those who would use you for their own narrow purposes and ends?

What would this look like in practice? In my life, here are four examples:

1) Reason and Whim
When a whim arises, will I immediately go with it? And the next one? And the next? Will I simply live my life as a captive to Freud’s Id, the desires and urges that are constantly arising in me, one after another? NO! With the Rationalists of the 17th century, I will not rush to follow every one of my whims and desires, but will stop first and consider the consequences of my actions. I will use reason to recognize that I have many different desires, and that they often conflict with each other—and that I cannot fulfill them all.

I will therefore be reasonable at least part of the time, and reflect on which desires seem most important, and which ones lead toward the kind of person that I would like to be. I will listen to the advice and counsel of my friends and family, and I will consider how my actions will affect all those I care about, as well as all other beings. I recognize that my understanding of all these things is very, very limited, but I have faith that by considering these things as rationally as I can, I will move closer to answers that are in harmony with my own values, and with a more harmonious life for myself—and everyone my life touches.

In this process, all of my faculties will be engaged, not the least of which is my intuition, which reason suggests is one of the most profound abilities I have to hold and compare all the factors that will influence each important decision I will make.

Along with Kant I will consider the duties and responsibilities that my culture suggests, and give them significant value; but unlike Kant, I will also question whether those definitions of duty are the highest and best, and following Plato and Voltaire, I will recognize that reason strongly suggests there is an Unseen Order to the universe that I have the capacity to know and align myself with.

2) Reason and Authority
I recognize that there are many voices of authority—political, cultural, religious—telling me what is right, what I should believe. I will listen, and give respect to those voices, for they form the basis upon which my culture functions, and carry within them kernels of truth gleaned in the long history of the human search for wisdom. But with Spinoza, Leibniz, and Jefferson—as well as almost all the founders of American independence—I will use my reason to question authority, for authority can easily become authoritarian. I will ask of those who assert that they have the “right answers” to provide rational explanations for their views, and I will evaluate those explanations as would Pitirim Sorokin and William James, using reason and intuition as complimentary tools for acquiring wisdom and understanding.

3) Reason and Community
My culture gives direction to how I will act and how I will live, but I can also see that there are ways in which my community is not functioning in a very healthy way. Thus, rather than relying exclusively on the rules and injunctions of my culture, I will consider for myself all of the facts and issues as best I can, and use my rational mind to understand what is working and what is not.

I will then encourage all of the members of my community to reason together, by saying to each other—by voice and by pen—all the factors we can see that reflect upon each issue at hand. After we have done this, after we have given voice to all the arguments, heard all the differing opinions, I will encourage each individual to consider what seems most true and right—for each has a right to form his or her own opinions. Then I will work to find a way for us to come to some agreement, some common understanding as to the right path to take. When we cannot, let us develop the best ways we can find to resolve our differences besides the use of force, such as voting, intelligent compromise, mutual respect and sacrifice, juries, and arbitration by disinterested parties.

In this process of finding the best ways to live together, let us recognize, with Confucius and Aristotle, Aquinas and Hegel, that there are foundational principles that exist to which we can turn for guidance, and that reason and rationality are two of the most important tools we have to discover those principles. But along with countless wise figures through history, let us consider the possibility that these principles exist as part of an Unseen Order, and that along with reason, intuition is crucial in discovering the meaning these principles might have for our lives.

4) Rationality and Spirit
Is there really an Unseen Order, one that can provide guidance for my life, and to which I can refer in an attempt to discover values and meanings that will provide the basis for a life worth living? Most of my fellow humans have thought so, but how can I be sure? And crucially, even if I think it might be true, how do I choose between the competing assertions of those who claim to KNOW, when all these claims are so different from each other. How do I bring clarity to the chaos of so many conflicting claims of truth?

To begin, I will try to be open to the arguments and assertions of those I care about and those I respect—and to as many others as possible—and will weigh all views over against each other with my rational mind as best I can to see which ones make the most “sense.” Then my rationality can join with my intuition as I begin to arrive at the positions that have the strongest “feeling sense” of rightness within me, for at this level of knowing, I recognize that proof is not possible, and logic has limited value. With William James and Martin Heidegger, Einstein and Alfred North Whitehead, I will follow my rationality as far as it can go, and then I will trust a deeper knowing that sometimes can arise, leading to those “AHA” moments that form the basis of the deepest human wisdom and understanding.

The best I can do is gather as much information as I can at every level of my being, and then reflect with my heart as well as my mind as truthfully as I can. When and if a sense of the right path to take does arise, I will follow it—while knowing that, as a fallible human being, I could be wrong, and so staying open to an even deeper glimpse if it arises in the future.

So here are the things that constitute the strengths and value of Reason:

To refuse to be a slave to whims and unconscious desires, choosing as consciously as possible to pursue only those urges and desires that fit
the broader goals and visions of one’s life;

To have respect for, but also to question authority, recognizing that each person has the right and ability to determine their personal views;

To make a concerted effort to gather as much information as possible in relation to the important opinions and decisions, and to consider this information in a reflective way with both heart and head;

To recognize that reason and intuition are in no way opposed to each other, but are the two legs upon which we walk toward wisdom (and if one is missing, the walking is made much more difficult);

And joining with most of the great minds and hearts of human history, to recognize that reason in no way conflicts with a spiritual point of view, or with an Unseen Order.

To me, this is what it means to live a rational life.

As for Shakti and Dante, although I loved them dearly, and found them extraordinarily intelligent beings, I guess I would say that in the above sense, they were not rational. (However, one day it struck me quite forcefully, when I was trying to teach Shakti a new trick—and was a bit frustrated because she did not yet understand the word I was using—that she had come to understand almost 100 words of the English language, and I had not come to understand one single word of her language. (Although I did come to understand a number of her “looks.”) So which of us was smarter?)

Footnotes

Varieties, p. 388