Rationalism: a paper tiger?

"The new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.

​

Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time.

​

A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble.

​

The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.

​

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."-- G.K. ChestertonThis is the face of postmodernism which lives in consummate contradiction-- moralizing absolutely about the falseness of a moral absolute, with an allegiance to nothing but its own self-congratulatory spirit. How eloquently does Chesterton get to the heart of matter by denuding rationalism of its rationality, exposing it to the light of reason which they so earnestly raise up as an idol.If one looks for internal inconsistencies as a way of uncovering flawed truth claims, how does the rationalist view deal with its own glaring contradictions?If postmodernists and rationalists applaud tolerance as a virtue to be sought after, how do they come to grips for their own intolerance of a view that must remain cogent with the law of non-contradiction-- that two opposing principles cannot both be simultaneously right?How can this irrationality be called the face of Rationalism when it so tragically flawed?Lastly, I believe there is nothing, at the heart of the matter, wrong with rationalism, because it employs the same deductive and inductive reasoning as any other critical thinker. The problem is, those who sometimes refer to themselves as Rationalists occasionally have irrational and contradictory devotion to a system of thought. Perhaps to avoid confusion, I will use an upper case "R" for Rationalists or "P" for Postmodernists. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add link

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Alrighty....

quote:

---

How can this irrationality be called the face of rationalism when it so tragically flawed?

---

I am going to add a link to postmodernist viewpoints. If for whatever reason you feel that is insufficient, then let me know and I'll go back to it again.Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

And it is every bit inconsistent now than it was then. That's not true. It just may be that you don't. Fine. Then there is no morality. And the grandeur must then be explained in other terms. Gaius and Titius have something to say about it, but its as bankrupt as the rest of what I'm currently railing against.

quote:

---

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

---

Yeah, I've read this excerpt before too. This is probably why it is said of Chesterton that he was far too nuanced to be called either progressive or a conservative. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Try and follow the train of logic. I'll give you an easy contemporary illustration. For many young women today, they face a catch-all, catch-22 situation. Some people deride the chasteness of women, calling them prudish, as if chastity is just some antiquated and silly relic of a previous era.But then when she finally does throw off the shackles of what they claim oppress her, she now gets to be a slut by doing the very thing they said would free her. She can't win, not even amongst those of her own sex, who often times are the worst offenders and the most judgmental. She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. Where can she go that is safe?This is the kind of thing that Chesterton is talking about. Since you didn't provide a link, I have no way of either agreeing with you or objecting to the assertion. Please provide something for me to go by.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

I was just giving an example of Chesterton was referring to. I'm sure you can appreciate it for what it says, not in whom it implicates or doesn't implicate.Do you think it wrong to in one moment scorn a woman's virginity, most likely for one's own gain, only to turn around and shame for reversing her decision, the very decision you prompted?Where I have tied it all in, (and I apologize for the confusion. I take full responsibility in that), is those who maintain a relative stance on these issues, be they Rationalists or Postmodernists, is that there is a fluidity they seem to aspire towards. In that fluidity they get to become the arbiter of their destinies, deciding what is good, moral, or just at a whim, without feeling a sense of reservation for having foisted contradiction after contradiction.Therein lies the perennial scapegoat, the moral skeleton key, the justification, the absolution, the exoneration. And it is only so because in their mind there is nothing concrete. The common modality then becomes.... well.... common and modal. Society will never achieve this, nor is the goal to have carbon copies walking around.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

I don't think all the credit can go to either a conservative group or a liberal group since there are individuals on either ideological side that can either show incredible compassion or incredible scorn. Perhaps not, or perhaps unbeknownst to you. This is isn't a thread about liberalism vs conservatism. I don't want my thread being hijacked. So if we all can keep it within context it would be much appreciated.I'm sure you are aware that this dichotomy exists for many women, which is the product of a fractured society which doesn't know which moral it wants to ascribe to. As Chesterton alluded to, is it morals trampling men, or men trampling morals?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

I don't think he was either. I just happened to come across this piece, when halfway through, I was simply ecstatic that someone else saw what I have seen. The more I read, the more I couldn't help associating it contemporaneously. Apparently very little has changed in many respects 100 years later. He's speaking about Revolutionaries, which in that time, and quite unlike the American Revolution, coincided with the French Revolutions anti-theological stance. The outworkings of that revolution, from Voltaire onward belies the same nihilistic nonsense that proves to be an unlivable life. He then segues into this excerpt:"This last attempt to evade intellectualism ends in intellectualism, and therefore in death. The sortie has failed. The wild worship of lawlessness and the materialist worship of law end in the same void. Nietzsche scales staggering mountains, but he turns up ultimately in Tibet. He sits down beside Tolstoy in the land of nothing and Nirvana. They are both helpless--one because he must not grasp anything, and the other because he must not let go of anything.

​

The Tolstoyan's will is frozen by a Buddhist instinct that all special actions are evil. But the Nietzscheite's will is quite equally frozen by his view that all special actions are good; for if all special actions are good, none of them are special. They stand at the crossroads, and one hates all the roads and the other likes all the roads. The result is--well, some things are not hard to calculate. They stand at the cross-roads." -G.K. Chesterton; Chapter III - Suicide of Thought - Orthodoxy, 1909 Did you feel specifically implicated? If you neither refer to yourself as either a Postmodernist or a Rationalist, what prompted you to believe that it was directed towards you? Its directed towards anyone who rationalizes in the manner with which Chesterton describes. If that doesn't include you, sit back and enjoy the dialogue. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Perhaps consigning it to postmodernists and rationalists was actually not broad enough, but I suppose relativists fit the bill so long as we're speaking in generalities.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

In your condemnation of lumping, you have lumped. You know what they say about assumptions, don't you? In all seriousness, you were the last person on my mind when this topic came to surface. You are consistent, you employ rationalism... well... rationally, and you are a nice man, as far as I can tell. You sir, are safe.Its kind of weird to be thought of as a conservative evangelical Christian. Maybe its because its been turned in to a string of epithets now or days. Now the terms are synonymous with "bad." But I'd like to think I'm one of the cool, hip conservative evangelical Christians... You know, all five of them.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

As sad as that is, its unfortunately very true. I don't know. I mean, is there really a difference between screaming, fanatical fascists from screaming, fanatical socialists? Both sides are convinced their ideology is the way. Both sides feel justified in using violence as a means to an end. Oh, the straight edge scene sometimes gets far worse than that. People have been murdered for smoking a cigarette, or drinking a beer, or eating a hamburger.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Sure, that makes sense. By those of a more liberal persuasion, my vehicle has been urinated and spit on, its been keyed, my wife has been physically accosted, etc, etc. These are the types of pressures that conservatives could say they are faced with. But, is it not the same thing in reverse, depending on who it is? Of course. It would be silly to try and say who is more violent, who is more prone to violence, since it is an individual matter.I've met stark raving mad liberals, and I've met stark raving mad conservatives too. It seems to be declining compared to late 90's level. But there is still a very active presence. Portland is the west coast hub for ALF extremists.

quote:

---

Oh, the straight edge scene sometimes gets far worse than that. People have been murdered for smoking a cigarette, or drinking a beer, or eating a hamburger.

---

It started to get real bad in Syracuse, NY, where roving street gangs used to convert fire extinguishers filled with pepper spray. They would blast people for smoking a cigarette. In this video, a Reno kid was bludgeoned to death. This certainly doesn't indict all straight-edge kids, many of whom I grew up with. But it does illustrate that any thing that starts out with a good premise can be corrupted. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : fixed link address

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Alright, then let me clarify what I mean. When I included postmodernism, I did so because the societal tone is concurrent with these beliefs. The postmodernist era is using terms like, "tolerance," "relativism," "pluralism," etc. I used Rationalists because many that ascribe to such belief systems often do so against their own pragmatism.If that isn't broad enough for you, then I'll happily change the title, since I believe you have a point.The titles are secondary, in my opinion, next to the material. I don't think the actual premise of my thread has even been discussed at this point.So, if the strawman has been sufficiently slain to everyone's satisfaction, I would like to know if anyone else thinks these inconsistencies present a problem, or if they think it is inconsequential. Well, then you got the wrong message. Not that we can't know it, but that we can't prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt to one another. The easy thing to do is simply to defer to a relativist mindset.But I have a question:Elsewhere, Crashfrog had said that he believes some morals to have object value-- namely, female circumcision. Is there any justification under any circumstance, whatsoever, that would make the surgical removal of the clitoris morally acceptable? If there is no absolute morality, then there is no morality whatever. And if there is no morality, then there is no justification for abhorring female circumcision.In your estimation, if morals are only relative, then having an equal say in what social mores become fixed isn't a moral question either. Is it right that some people's morals get more say than others? Would it be right for a group to condemn you to die for whatever justification they could surmise? Is it immoral for them to take away your set of morals?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Well, I think H has a very valid point when offering a caveat to not paint with such a broad brush.I obviously maintain more conservative beliefs than I do liberal one's. That said, there is no way to discount the fact that there are both wonderful liberals and conservatives. Some of my very best friends are liberals, just as some are moderates, just as some are conservatives.For me, when I denounce liberalism as a scourge, I do so under the pretense and context of extremism, which not all are apt to ascribe to themselves. Perhaps that's not fair, since it consolidates the affable one's unwittingly as well.Truth be told, I can handle a moderate liberal better than I could a raging conservative. Perhaps extremism would be the only thing I paint with a broad brush...?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

quote:

---

If there is no absolute morality, then there is no morality whatever. And if there is no morality, then there is no justification for abhorring female circumcision.

---

Then what will you say to the person in another country that just butchered a little baby? Hey, in my country, we think that's bad. But I understand that in your country its fine. Is intruding in their moral code itself either moral or immoral? Which would make you more immoral: Stepping in and supplanting their view on morality, or letting them butcher the child because it respecting other people's morals is moral?Either way you are forced to make a decision irrespective of circumstance. Either way you have to give up one moral to advance another. One group may call it objectively right, while another group calls it objectively wrong. It doesn't mean that points of view are true. One is true, or it is not. Obviously this presents a problem for atheists because they don't believe in God, then by what measure is something objectively good or bad? Its almost as if they would have to default to relativity. Its either that or concede that some kind of Higher Power/Authority exists.But to bring it back in to perspective, is there any justification in your mind, or any circumstance that would allow FGM to not be wrong? No, because some things obviously are subjective. Using that as a clever way of getting around a moral principle is an underhanded tactic. Couldn't I just as easily say that unless flavor is subjective, then it doesn't exist otherwise? Obviously not, but that is tantamount to what you are suggesting here. That's the problem. How can you prove it? At the same time, can you honestly sit there and explain why you are innately appalled by the butchered baby? When you protest that innocent life being senselessly snuffed out, you are appealing to their better judgment; their conscience. What defense will have against it using a relative moral?"Well, it sure seems bad to me. I know you see it otherwise. I'm not suggesting that what you have done is bad, per say, I'm just giving you my opinion on the matter."What justification does the judge have? How would the law make sense? How can we keep people accountable? What would accountability mean in a relative world? What purpose is there in even sharing your opinion in such as way that suggests it is superior to my opinion? Society can't function with such flippancy.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

No, I was using labels I did understand, but was perhaps not using a term broad enough in the spectrum because it encompassed more than just Rationalists and Postmodernists. That would be great, but its unfeasible, so, no, that's not what I'm after. I've stated, in no uncertain terms, that I should have used a term more broad than just Rationalists and Postmodernists. You seem bent on keeping the argument at the level of definitions. What is left, presumably, is mowing down the strawman. Chesterton's piece is not about postmodernism. However, I couldn't help noticing the parallels between Chesterton's contemporaries juxtaposed by mine. When I read it, I just had to laugh aloud. I thought I would share the irony.What exactly is the message of propaganda that you presuppose for Chesterton? The popularity of something is not a determining factor alone. And I have presented a treatise, on numerous occasions, about why I believe it is immoral. Yours, I suppose, are exculpated? If there was no practicality in it, there would be no need to espouse it in the first place. Please explain this since you are in essence saying that opposites are synonymous. Whoa, hang on a minute. I am not denying that relative morals exist. I say homosexuality is wrong. You say homosexuality is right. Therein lies moral relativity. The problem is, absolute morals must exist, not only from a philosophical point of view, but in a much more tangible way. The only difference being that one is not provable by nature. But that certainly doesn't negate the truth. What?!?!? Its not? So you are only concerned with the possible risk of health? You see nothing morally wrong with female circumcision from a moral point of view?Secondly, I don't believe that. By concerning yourself for the safety of a human being, you are in essence espousing a moral in itself-- that its righteous to care about the well-being of others, and wicked to place them in undue danger. Listening to what God has instructed. Period. But you won't bring yourself to even entertaining the notion, so that in your ambivalence, you can try and remain justified. What?!?!?! What in the holy heck do you call laws? Did you make those laws? Did you have a say in those laws? People-- people other than yourself, make subjective moral views objective all the time.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake