Irrationalism
Greetings, The main content in the struggle against irrationalism, the cutting edge, is not just the fight against all the ideological and political trends that do not base themselves on the laws of social development. It mainly confronts those who conciliate with the defenders of the capitalist status quo. They conciliate with those who want to reform the capitalist system in a bid to preserve the status quo. In precise terms, it is the struggle against those who conciliate with the liberal/social-democratic political line that is determined to create illusions about the possibilities to reform the capitalist system, that this reform or restructuring will lift it out of its continuing crisis. In philosophical and theoretical terms, those who advocate that the capitalist system can rid itself of its problems through reform, do not see in the capitalist crisis the condition for the creation of the new modern society. According to them, there is no further stage in the development of the society. They advocate that the capitalist system is the "best" and "final" stage of society, and that the capitalist system is the "best" system which ever came into being in spite of its weaknesses and shortcomings. They also create the illusion that capitalism will evolve into a system without crisis sometime in the far distant future. Irrationalism is the only "system of thought," if it can be called a system, by which the bourgeoisie justifies everything. The most damaging product of this irrationalism is the theory of "human nature." It presupposes that all human beings are bestowed, preordained or preconditioned with certain qualities that are immutable. The bourgeoisie glibly states that it is "only human" to possess these enduring qualities. Of course, these qualities are none other than the habits of the bourgeoisie. They do not see, they do not want to see, a human being who has communist qualities. In fact, it can be proven with the precision of science that there is no such thing as human nature. It can be shown that human consciousness and human qualities are dependent on the mode of production, on the mode of living. As the mode of production changes so does human consciousness and qualities. There is nothing immutable nor eternal in terms of human qualities, except that human beings make their own history according to the laws governing society and nature. The only constant is change and nothing else. To suggest that there is such a thing as "human nature" is to completely succumb to irrationalism. The bourgeoisie argues irrationally and is contradictory when it claims that the capitalist system can be reformed, yet contends that because of "human nature" there is not even the possibility of change. Which assertion of the bourgeoisie is correct? Which formulation do they present as valid? The bourgeoisie has sunk so low in terms of theory and its opposition to enlightenment that it can even claim both sides of its own contradictory assertions. Irrationalism lacks objectivity of consideration. Those who follow it even deny the existence of the objective world. Take, for instance, deconstructionism, which is all the rage in the U.S., particularly with regard to race. According to this "philosophy," only those persons who are members of a definite society, group of people, or gender can grasp the reality of their condition. Only females can understand what their problems are. The same is the case for workers or national minorities. Such a ridiculous way of looking at reality incites people to marginalise themselves but does not add one iota to human knowledge about the system on which the society is based. How far would science have advanced if scientists had to be whatever they were analyzing in order to understand the thing in itself and in its relations? A reactionary organization called "International Democratic Association" to which belong Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Helmuth Kohl and other prominent bourgeois has a presupposition that there is no alternative to the existing conditions. In other words, it recognizes the existing conditions yet determines beforehand that there is no way out of those conditions except by consolidating them through reform or restructuring. Such reform leads to the further deepening and broadening of the crisis created by the basic condition. The advocates of reform or "shock therapy" refuse to concede that these reforms are making things worse. They actually accuse others of obstructing the reforms, of being conservative, while they are daring and radical, and see glory in an earlier free market period of capitalism or even further back to the divine right of kings and medievalism. Radicalism, in this instance, refers to how far society can be pushed backward. Irrationalism is subjectivism taken to the extreme in isolat
Re: Irrationalism
At 01:12 PM 10/7/97 -0400, Shawgi Tell wrote, inter alia: Irrationalism is the only "system of thought," if it can be called a system, by which the bourgeoisie justifies everything. The most damaging product of this irrationalism is the theory of "human nature." It presupposes that all human beings are bestowed, preordained or preconditioned with certain qualities that are immutable. The bourgeoisie glibly states that it is "only human" to possess these enduring qualities. Of course, these qualities are none other than the habits of the bourgeoisie. They do not see, they do not want to see, a human being who has communist qualities. I do not think the label "irrationalism" is a particularly useful way of explaining how a given ideology works, especially that, if taken literally, the claim that capitalism is irrational is demonstrably false. I think we must distinguish two qualitatively different phenomena here: (i) the actual process of decision making under capitalism that faces well known limitations resulting in externalities; while the externalities may pose, in a long run, a serious social problem -- their existence hardly qualifies "capitalism" as "irrational" except perhaps in a figurative sense, as used by Baran Sweezy; (ii) the ex post facto legitimation of the decisions already made and courses of action already taken, also known as rationalization; under that rubric, we have the quoted stories about human nature, invisible hands, and kindred metaphysical Deus ex machina entities created for the sole purpose of explaining events by politically acceptable narratives; sure, such rationalizations amount to fantasies, but their existence is hardly unique to capitalism (every society has its own mythology); nor does anyone seriously maintain (save for die-hard neo-classical economists) that these fictions are actual factors in making real life decisions by real life actors. A more fruitful approach is the study of collective decision making (and their unintended consequences) and the role of myth and ceremony in modern bureaucracies -- both areas rather extensively studied by organizational sociology. PS. There is an intersting article by Heilbroner in the last issue of The Nation, commenting onthi pittfalls of the conventional economic theory, and advocating the consideration of social variables in explaining economic behavior. regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
[PEN-L:7490] Irrationalism I
--Boundary (ID zG6AZ5QlevKLZSo1kBMA7A) In science education the attack is on science itself. The "new" (irrational) view of science is that it is subjective, culturally determined, no different from non-science, and a useful tool but non-explanatory of the universe. This is in contrast to the rational view that science is objective, universally valid, different from non-science, and explanatory as well as useful. Exactly the same "new" view of science was promoted in the 1930=FEs by Germany's National socialists (see R. Brady's 1937 The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism). This "new" view, then, is not only old but is also in agreement with the views of the most backward elements of our century. Further, there are direct connections between the advocates of non-science today and those of the 1930's. Jacques Derrida, leader of post-modernism, calls himself a disciple of Nazi philosopher Heidegger and Derrida's own pupil, American Paul de Man, was a pro-Nazi journalist in Belgium. It is no coincidence that the same four characteristics of science are being attacked today as in the 1930's. They are the defining characteristics of science, wich make it science. Without them, science is reduced to a par with crystal ball gazing as a source of knowledge. Further, now anything can be elevated to become "science", including creationism, astrology, ESP, chariots of the gods and Nazi racial and biological "science". What practical purpose might the modern critique of science end up accomplishing? Certainly it will not change the actual instrumental practice of science under the direction of the ruling class. Modern weapons, for example, will still be produced by objective rational science. The key purpose served by the current attack on science is ideological. First, it negates the value of scientific thinking among the people. Second, it gives a scientific veneer and hence credibility to whatever strengthens ruling class ideology and politics. It is definitely important to keep in mind that the current assault on rationality is not only backward but dangerous. After all, it was Hitler himself who declared that "We are now at the end of the Age of Reason. The intellect has grown aristocratic and has become a disease of life." Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Boundary (ID zG6AZ5QlevKLZSo1kBMA7A)--
[PEN-L:7491] Irrationalism II
In the 1930's, British philosopher Karl Popper proposed the idea that scientific theories could not be verified but only falsified. Popper also made a career out of attacking Marxism. Popper's notion of unverifiability is often appealed to today by those who attack the reliability of scientific knowledge. Michael Polanyi's 1958 book, Personal Knowledge, which extols the value of "tacit knowledge", "intuition", etc. is now very popular in academic circles among those who are against objectivity and rationalism. The book's introduction specifically states that it was written to oppose dialectical materialism. Some more recent attacks on rationalism are launched in the name of Marxism, revolution, Lenin, etc. Thomas Kuhn's notorious attack on the rationality of science is misleadingly called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn openly declares that science cannot give us reliable knowledge of the world, as well as implies that revolution does not lead to progress. Feyerabend, a modern American anti-rational philosopher, quotes Marx, Lenin, and the "Chinese communists" to defend his anti-science, anti-rational ideas. These include that the most productive scientific method is anarchy and that science differs little from myth. Feyerabend also uses the name of Lysenko in order to slander Stalin's leadership. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
