THE IRRATIONAL URGE TO BE RATIONAL (It will be objected that the following argument literally turns on itself. But it’s unavoidable. The subject matter mandates the difficulty. I encountered the same challenge in Tao, An Enduring Ancient Wisdom, when I tried to use words to describe words. We cannot say that words are worthless without using words to do it. In the same way, we most certainly cannot be irrational about rationality. It is a very strange thing indeed to make the rational suggestion that – just perhaps – the very process of rationality is itself invalid. But I don’t know how else to do it, any more than I can think of a way to talk about words without using words.) How did rationality rise to its place of prominence in the human psyche? Its roots are puzzling, to say the least. In fact, depending upon your own psychic sensibilities, its true origins just might be a bit disturbing for you. You see, it is entirely possible that rationality doesn't really exist. It could very well be something that we simply made up. Yes, it is indeed possible that man, contrary to popular opinion, is not a rational animal at all. It may be that he simply desires to be one. I no sooner offer this proposal than I realize how strange it sounds. Man desires to be rational? We cannot deny it, but therein lies the source of the problem. Man desires to be rational. Somehow, I don’t think of desire and rationality as having anything to do with each other. But I can’t get away from it. There seems no escape. Why else would man even attempt to be rational if he had no desire to be so? It is indeed peculiar then that man, a fundamentally desiring animal, prompted by urges that trace their roots to sources primeval, wishes to be something that is completely unassociated (at least it would seem) with that desire. Or is it unrelated? The rigors of evolution surely compel us to consider some sort of connection to survival. In the absence of such a link, it is indeed difficult to understand exactly why man would want to be the cogent creature he seems so proud to posture as. Desire (or urge) seems inextricably associated with finding food and satisfying gustatory and sexual appetites, activities that are not in any way rational, that have nothing whatsoever to do with being logical and reasonable. Desire, in other words, seems solely preoccupied with finding food and sex, in reproducing and nurturing that which we reproduce. Why then do we want to be rational? Does it in some way help us find food, and/or sex? Did primitive men use logic to hunt? They very likely did. Did they have to offer their women reasons for engaging in copulation? That one I’m not too sure about. I suppose that at some point along the road of our evolution from animal to human, some sort of negotiating for sex did indeed develop. How it happened, we can only guess. If it’s like everything else, it was probably the result of an accident, quite possibly the accident, the one that sparked our rise to that plateau we seem so proud to call human. Human beings do indeed differ from animals with respect to their sexual behavior. To be sure, there is yet something of the animal still residing in human flesh. It is evident in the very desire to have sex in the first place. But the rational process that most humans engage in when it comes time to actually get physical is something unique to their species. Driven purely by instinct, animals too engage in mating rituals before copulation. But humans are unique in that they talk to each other. Their mating rituals consist primarily in their way of speaking, what they say and how they say it (not to mention the part about saying it in exactly the right context). What man has not complained at some time or other about his desired sexual objective (i.e., his girlfriend) playing head games with him? The ability to engage in sexual coitus is undeniably associated (in virtually all human cultures) with the concomitant ability to speak, in one form or another. This is proven by the fact that human beings do not simply approach each other, and without saying a word begin having sex. But, be this as it may, the possibility that rational thinking may have developed somehow within the context of our mating rituals is virtually irrelevant. The fact remains that the primary force behind its development is nevertheless rooted in motives (the need to eat and reproduce) that are not - in any way - rational. Does the fact that rationality is ultimately rooted in desire suggest that rationality itself is not (indeed, cannot be) credible? Is it any more than (to use some street vernacular) a pipe dream? Is it one of those things we merely enjoy talking about but never actually manage to do? Is there, in other words, any rational basis for rationality? Try as I might, I can only find a non-rational source for it, that which we call desire. And I am forced to conclude that, in the absence of any rational basis for rationality, it is indeed a proverbial pipe dream, a mere word that we - driven by pure desire - have simply concocted. It is one thing to do this, perhaps even understandable given the primal forces that constantly, and inexorably, prod us, but to try to foist it off as a credible reality, something that we have discovered, in the same way that we might discover an undeniable physical object, like gold, or another continent, comes very close to being an act of cowardice. It is at very least a form of self-delusion. We desire so strongly to believe that we are imbued with a rational nature that we throw all caution to the wind, strut about like peacocks claiming that we are indeed such creatures and blatantly posture amongst ourselves as if it were an axiomatic given. We cannot accept the fact that we simply made up the whole business. We created the very word “rational” (in the forge of our desire, remember). We display it proudly in the midst of any oral exchange we may happen to find ourselves engaged in. We’ve done it for so long that we’ve forgotten that it was born of (and can therefore be nor more than) a creature of pure desire. From this perspective, it is easy to understand why there are no reasons to go on living, merely desires to do so. The same is true of our stance on any abstract concept we care to name and possibly discuss. One of the most popular abstractions is the one centered on the idea of God. Any position taken on this idea will be non-rational. It can’t help but be so, because the very idea itself is non-rational. The only possible rational position that may be assumed with regard to the idea (or any idea that is abstract) is one of non-involvement. To involve oneself with a non-rational idea is to essentially to wallow in it, or at very least to besmirch ones psyche with it. Whenever such an idea is suggested as a topic of conversation, the most rational response to it would take the form of a simple observation, that the very word (proposed for discussion) is abstract, most likely rooted in nothing more than desire (or at very least, idle speculation), and all discussion of it would therefore be ultimately meaningless, because the word itself is without meaning, i.e., concretely associated with nothing more than the definition given for it, which is itself simply made up, like all definitions. Rationality is defined as a function of logic and is often referred to as “reason,” but when you start looking for it, it is truly amazing how little of it there is to be found. Ask someone to describe the basis of his belief in something, like the Bible for example. Chances are, their answer will not be based on anything that could properly be referred to as rational. They will likely say that they believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God because it is so universally believed to be such (which means that they’re simply acquiescing to the dominance of the popular crowd), or because they have been somehow convinced that it contains prophecies that have come true. If you pursue this course, you will soon discover that they cannot really provide any specific (unequivocal) examples of prophecies that have come to pass. There is always a great deal of interpretation involved, virtually nothing definitive. If they were to take their case to a court of law, an impartial jury would return an unfavorable verdict. There would be nothing truly substantive to support the claim. If you press a believer long enough (assuming that they will even cooperate with such an inquiry) you will eventually have them in a corner, a corner which will force them to make an irrational jump, or leap, of faith. In most cases, believers don't really know why (with the emphasis on the word "know") they believe what they do. Most likely, they are victims of inertia. The beliefs have been bandied about for so long that they have accrued a certain momentum, and the inexorable force of momentum is very difficult to offset. In short, there is no rational basis for believing that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The very word belief itself suggests the assumption of an irrational stance. (I don't know; I simply believe.) Questions about the rationale behind the belief have a way of, ipso facto, attacking the very act of believing. There really is no rationale for believing; if there were, it would not be believing; it would be knowing. We may honestly conclude from this that the atheist is every bit as irrational as the believer. As a purely abstract concept, God cannot be known, one way or the other; only believed, in a positive or negative sense. An atheist entertains a non-rational belief that there is no God, while the theist promotes an irrational belief that there is one. Either way, the ultimately non-rational character of the dichotomy is inescapable. To avoid the pitfalls of irrationality (always it seems viewed as undesirable), one should probably shun all discussion of the God idea. As a purely abstract concept, there can be nothing meaningful to be gained from such dialogue. In the end, all parties to such debate will very likely do little more than cling to their completely irrational bases of belief, bases built on the framework of pure desire. Yes, the roots of rationality are indeed problematical. It is safe to say that the universe, i.e., the raw universe, is not rational. This of course does not necessarily suggest that it is irrational. It is simply non-rational, not operating on the basis of anything we would call rational. The universe seems to be centered in action, irrespective of any kind of rationality, or word usage. Contrary to the biblical suggestion that “In the beginning was the word,” in reality, (i.e., the real universe) the beginning was completely devoid of words, or reason, of any kind. To further support (and possibly further clarify) my contention that rationality is nothing more than a bogey on our cognitive radar screens, I would appropriate another Bible verse:
That which is born of flesh is flesh; that which is born of spirit is spirit. (Gospel of John 3:6)
The spirit (if you will) of this verse permits its application (I believe) in a modified sense, namely:
That which is born of desire is desire.
In the beginning was action, or dynamic, wordless, meaningless, completely chaotic and random process. Indeed, if we look hard enough, we can still see it at work. If we are honest, and look past our own contrived rationales, we can easily sense the urge of the beast in us, slumbering perhaps, helplessly fettered by the chains of a social dynamic, but unquestionably there, dreaming, always dreaming, of conquest of one sort or other, conquest that always enhances its own survival, always ensures its ability to obtain food and sex, to keep the primal life force seething deep inside going, and going, and going. In short, rationality is an extension of desire in the same way that space shuttles and computers are extensions of nature. It sounds as strange to say that we are simply expressing our desires whenever we are seemingly engaged in rational arguments as it is to say that a rocket ship is a perfectly natural phenomenon, but the path of objectivity and logic can lead us to no other conclusion.
|
