|
|
13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Cultivating the seedbed of reason, March 4, 2002
Philosophers' talk about rationality is apt to soar into the stratosphere of abstractions so it must be stated that Bartley's approach has immediate and practical applications. Following his teacher, Karl Popper, the operating principle of Bartley's rationalism is the formula "I may he wrong and you may be right, and by means of critical discussion we may get nearer to the truth of the matter". Bartley has offered a solution to the basic logical problem of rationality, the problem of "the limits of criticism", that is, how to deal with a persistent critic, like a nagging child, who keeps asking "Why?" each time an answer is offered to a question. His response is based on Popper's identification of the authoritarian structure of western thought which alerted Bartley to a previously undetected assumption (shared by rationalists and irrationalists alike and so not generally debated or even recognized), which he called "justificationism". It is summed up in the formula: "Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (generally the source of the belief in question) and this makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it." Among the contenders for authoritative status are "hard facts", "the light of reason", and the informed heart, logic, intuition, sacred traditions and innumerable religious authorities. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition of Empiricism the authority of sense experience was adopted, so "seeing is believing" and science provides the epitome of rational knowledge. In the Continental Rationalist tradition following Descartes the locus of authority resides with the intellectual intuition. Having discovered the hidden premise of justificationism, Popper and Bartley proceeded to criticise it, showing that we can dispense with the aim of positive justification without giving up anything that really matters, such as respect for facts, for arguments, for the systematic use of reason to weigh and test the validity of beliefs and assumptions. This new theory of rationality is not a theory of justified belief, it is a theory of critical preference between options. We can form a preference for one option rather than another (whether for a car, a scientific theory or a political allegiance) in the light of evidence and arguments produced to that time. This preference may (or may not) he revised in the light of new evidence and arguments. It may be protested that this is not a great novelty, it is just commonsense. But historically, commonsense has proved no match for learned justificationist arguments. The problem for rationalists is that the traditional dogmatic framework of thought guarantees that the irrationalists can always win, any time that they force the issue and demand that the rationalist produce truly justified beliefs. In this way the dogmatic framework provides the seedbed for the weeds of irrationalism and this yields the shocking discovery that dogmatic (justificationist) theories of rationality actually nurture and maintain that seedbed. Hence there is nothing very surprising about the survival of irrationalism despite the onward march of science and the generally high regard for rationality in Western civilisation (Romantic reactions not withstanding). It seems that rationalists in the mould of Bertrand Russell nurture the seeds of their own destruction by persisting in the quest for justified beliefs and so helping to maintain the justificationist framework of thought.
The story of "The Retreat to Commitment" began as a somewhat esoteric study of rationality in Protestant theology. "This essay is a study of problems of self-identity and integrity in the Protestant and rationalist traditions. Probably the two most influential spiritual traditions of Western culture, both have helped provide involvement and purposive living in the past: and both offer their services to help overcome present-day alienation. However, these two traditions not only are internally confused but also are breeding confusion and alienation quite out of proportion to the internal confusion of either." Bartley sketched the evolution of liberal Protestant theology in the 19th and 20th centuries as non-fundamentalist Christians tried to retain both Christianity and rationality in the face of the rising tides of science and secularisation. Social reform was a dominant motif, inspired by the example of the historical Jesus but further research destroyed the image of the historical Jesus as a paragon of humanitarian virtues and goodwill. This posed a major threat for liberal, rational Protestants because Christians had to make a choice between a form of liberal Christianity without assent to the newly revealed non-liberal historical Jesus or a new form of Christianity, however irrational (and non-liberal) this may be. Karl Barth started the new trend in Protestant theology by following the lead of Kierkegaard, who attacked rational, ethics-centered Christianity with a defence of the "absurd". His ideal Christian was not the liberal vision of the historical Jesus but Abraham who was prepared to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac at God's command. To be a man of faith was to obey, blindly uncritically, without reason, absurdly. It is readily apparent that this position was unaffected by the collapse of the liberal version of the historical Jesus and Kierkegaard was revealed as a man long in advance of his time, in fact an existentialist, before the term was even invented. Following the directions charted by Kirkegaard and Bath the new theologians accept that the Christian faith is based on an irrational commitment but they are secure in the knowledge that their critics, whether humanists or Marxists or Hindus cannot demonstrate a fully-justified rational basis for their criticism. They can always respond with the "boomerang" argument, the tu tuque "You too!" rejoinder. "Maybe I cannot justify my position, but you cannot justify yours either". This has been a great stand-by for people wishing to evade fundamental issues and of course it is based on the assumption of justificationism, which traditionally provides the invisible framework of debate. So the answer, following Bartley, is to widen the scope of the argument to encompass the traditional framework, to criticise and dispense with the assumption of justificationism itself. More essays and reviews of Bartley can be found on line by a google search Bartley + Rathouse.
|
by Thomas S. Kuhn
by Karl Popper
by David Miller
by Douglas R. Hofstadter
