"...one may say anything about the history of the world--anything that might enter the most disordered imagination. The only thing one can't say is that it's rational. The very word sticks in one's throat."
The purpose of this essay is to examine the belief that the best kind of life is the reasonable life. That the life which is most desirable for humans is the life in which I deduce and aspire toward what is reasonably in my interest. It is my intention to cast doubt upon the belief that man is rational, and make the case for the significance of mans irrationality.
Firstly let us examine, reductio, the suggestion than man is a rational animal and consider if it is reasonable to make such an assertion. Does man consistently act rationally and in accordance with his interests? We would be hard pressed to defend such a position given we are likely all guilty of such crimes against what is reasonable. After all who has not preferred to give into to the temptation of desirable food despite the full knowledge of what the consequences might be? The ever expanding waistline of this generation is testament enough of the appetite to fill our bodies with something more than what interest and reason alone can supply. And driving above the speed limit? And paying attention in class at school? And not slacking off at work? And exercising regularly? These are all things we might reasonably conclude we should do and yet we do not.
So if man has great difficulty in acting rationally, why then should we assume that he would desire a rational life? It might seem more reasonable based on what we know of mankind to conclude that he is not rational and does not desire a ration life. That at times it is preferable for him to choose against his own interests. That there is in fact something more valuable to man than reason and his "own interests". Perhaps then we can conclude that mankind has consistently demonstrated his preference to act as he chooses with little regard to his own interest.
But Man's natural irrationality does not eliminate the possibility he might, one day, become rational. That tomorrow he might be more reasonable than he is today if he commits himself to do the cognitive work. That discipline and education might make him sufficiently aware of his interests so that he would "see sense" and abandon all other pursuits. This is, however, a rather generous assessment. Does history indicate this possibility in man? Where has "progress" taken us thus far? The countless examples in this century alone of how progress has expanded our capacity for acting irrationally and against our own interest reveal the comedy in this assessment. Our progress has merely opened our eyes to permit us to see our behaviors more clearly than ever before. We are still far from having learned to act as reason and interest dictate.
Yet now our eyes are open we can see that it is not us that chose. Our biological machinery chooses for us as dictated to by natural laws. we are simply an insignificant cog in the machinery of this universe. What a relief. Soon all questions will be answered with an algorithm or equation. Every question we have about human behavior will be answered to our satisfaction so that there will be nothing left to ask. Nothing left to desire. Nothing left to chose (and what choice would we have anyway?). I should, with such an objection to freedom of choice, be able to calculate my whole life beforehand and then what? Would I really then be forced to live it out in all is monotony? Such a Life would be remarkably dull but at least boredom can lead to interesting places. Perhaps even to irrationality. After all what is left once we have achieved this reasonable Utopia but to destroy it?
For Human life acts as a whole, and it appears, may in some instance intentionally desire what is harmful. And why not? What is hurtful can be useful; can awake impulses that would otherwise have languished and decayed within a person. Are we so committed to extinguish harm within society that we are willing to sacrifice the very thing that may one day preserve the species? How do we know such a venture is possible? is desirable? is advantageous? Such claims are only pragmatic suppositions man would do will to mistrust given his natural inclinations.
In closing you may object to this essay, and argue that to attempt to examine the irrationality of man is to miss something fundamental. After all, by definition how can one reasonably evaluate that which is not reasonable? The irony of such an en devour is not lost on me and hence the continental approach. It seems to me a very appropriate means for an apologist of irrationality to adopt reason as the tool by which he intends to make his point. Besides we can hardly conclude that one more irrational act by a human would really hurt the case.
