It seems to me, sometimes, that I have written on and addressed all the forms of irrationality that exist. I know that is not possible, because irrationality knows no boundaries in the sense that falseness knows no boundaries, while truth is highly limited. Even so, irrational responses do fall into categories, and so do the causal factors for choosing and using irrational responses. And addressing those categories is a limited pursuit.
So as I view the human condition and the national condition, it seems to me that I have already dealt with the rational deviancies which are at play. That makes it hard to write about it, again and yet again. The irrationalities persist and become more pervasive amongst the general population, driven by ideologs who need, for whatever reason, to perpetuate those irrationalities. (A perfect example is the high proportion of the population that thinks an increase in the national debt limit is a good thing).
Writing about rationality and its enemies has its limits. After a while redundancy is unavoidable. While I do have one more article in progress, a somewhat lengthy one on Skepticism, the denial of knowledge types and the justification of belief, the field of new material seems fairly barren.
Even worse, attempting to address the irrationality du jour, the daily statements made by the opponents of rationality, means having to endure the culture of hatred and venom that masquerades as lovers of humanity. And that culture is escalating to a point that is hard, for me anyway, to bear with equanimity. The adolescent provocations of some of the blogosphere / ideologosphere do not even warrant reasoned responses. And even if responses were to be made, to what end is that energy expended? The enemies of reason are not just closed, they are hardened.
Still there must be those who are considering the positions of both camps, those for whom their worldview is still in formation, those who are open to hearing and analyzing. For those reasons I welcome any and all suggestions for subjects which are of interest to the readers of this blog, including subjects already addressed (which might have been inadequately covered). Contact me here or on the email address at the top of the right hand column (which I am sometimes late in viewing).
In the middle of the 20th century, Mortimer Adler (the "People's Philosopher"), discussed a hundred basic subjects using the catch phrase, "How To Think About..." This was not the same as "what to think"; he demonstrated a common analytical approach to the difficult, abstract subjects which invade our lives. I do not pretend to the heights or depths of Adler, but I do have a familiarity with analytical processes. And that is the thrust of this blog.
If there were no readers here, I would not write this blog. Reader participation and contribution is highly appreciated. My sincere thanks to all of you.
5 comments:
Stan,
Thank you for your wonderful blog, it's been educational and a real eye opener.
Could you continue your lessons on logic?
"The irrationalities persist and become more pervasive amongst the general population"
Is there a way to reverse this? Or is the rot too deep?
How would you teach people to learn how to think, and how to apply the tools of logic in one's daily life?
Thanks again!
-Russell
Russell said,
"How would you teach people to learn how to think, and how to apply the tools of logic in one's daily life?"
This is very difficult to impossible in today's environment, where ethics are learned from sitcoms and logic is learned from newscast anchors and talk-show hosts.
If one could control the schools and the media, maybe people - people in general - could be taught. But the schools get either funded or starved via the Feds, and the media is controlled by ex-hippie Leftists. So the problem is one of person to person interface.
Blogs like this one are minority niche places, and are swamped by the bloggers who are nasty mouths, and that draws people like flies. The internet is crammed with ideologs, psychos, and cute kittens, and it appears to me that there are few who really wish to question their premises and search for the valid and true.
However, due to the world wide reach of the internet, there are enough people in that minority that it makes it worth while to discuss the options with them.
The concept of a book on the subject is dwarfed by the obstacles of printing and distributing and getting shelf space in book stores, as well as any publicity that the thing even exists. Moreover, there is a plethora of books on things like "Critical Thinking" which are actually Materialist manuals on the beauty of skepticism, not sources of dispassionate or objective analysis of abstract propositions. A good book would be lost in the competition from fraudulent titles of the same general name or genre.
This is likely to be more than you asked for, and less than you wanted. But the reality is that most people either think they can think or they don't care to think about thinking. So they aren't in the market for any such thing.
So it will remain a niche market for those who do actually care about validity and truth. At least that's how I see it.
Stan,
Thanks for the response. I had reached much the same conclusions a while ago, it was a faint hope that led me to ask about it, in case I had missed something crucial.
Your talk of a niche market reminded me of Nock's "Isaiah's Job" and the Remnant.
http://mises.org/daily/2892
If Nock is correct, your book would, by it's nature, never reach any sort of mass acceptance, but the Remnant will find it.
Russell,
Great link, Nock was quite a writer. I enjoyed that article immensely, thanks!
I'm glad you liked it, Stan.
I haven't read much of Nock, but every time I do he politely destroys something I had thought was nearly immutable.
Post a Comment