One's personality is both a composition and reflection, but if I have to choose one of them, I will choose reflection as the "self" is more important to me than "me". One's composition may change, walking across the cultural landscapes and climbing the social ladder but one's self is tied to one's reflections. The fun part is that reflections are not bound to "Time-Space" barriers ( it is not time-space) and respective mental constructs, which have grown so thick over ages, that they had reduced the image of humans to Sisyphus, rolling different sizes of boulders on hills of different heights.… As the name of this Blog indicates, knols are my perspectives on topics of interests, sweet/bitter experiences or just doodling :)

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Pure Rationalism is destined to failure

If you learn that, something will kill your confidence in yourself, what would be your reaction to it? The reason, that I am asking this question is to question what we usually do not question; The Logic. While logic has been the cornerstone of the human understanding and the progress of Sciences but the fundamental flaw in it have turned many of human successes into historical failures. I will give examples to support my argument but first let me illustrate the fundamental flaw in logic;

- Logic basically talks about "relationship" of things based on their properties not "nature" of things... (A)

- Causes and effects are endless chains that limit predictability.... (B)

- Cause and effects are non-linear on long run.... (C)

- Competing rationalities are deleterious.... (D)

Why these assumptions are fundamental flaws in logic?

Before, I go into details, I like to define "Failure" first, so it becomes clear, what I mean by failure and why pure rationalism is destined to failure.

"Anything that promises certain outcomes/results or certain goals to be accomplished and it fails to achieve those goals, it is simply failure. Yes, there are a lot of rooms for rationalizing the failures by excuses but excuses do not improve anything. One of the frequently used excuse is a "future promise (s)".

Some may argue that, by this measure everything is destined to failure as nothing is perfect and everything grows. Yes, that is a totally different thing and definition and that is not something "purely rational". Constant growth and leaning from failures are something organic not rational.

Let me explain it by an example from population growth;

Everyone knows that the resources are limited and the populations are growing exponentially. So, it is a common sense's logic that population growth is not sustainable forever. It is going to reach its limits. So what logic asks for? Population control, right?

Population control has now a history to see the results in some countries like China. The gender disparity (preference of male over female child) has outbalanced the population with increasing ratio of male to female population. The ratio of young have reduced to old people and even in countries with no population control but simply better life expectancy the uneven aging (population of old people are growing and young people are reducing)  and it is becoming a bigger issue in areas that fail to maintain economic attraction for young population and young population are migrating to cosmopolitan cities. The uneven aging are putting more pressure on younger generation. There is no need to detail the social and economic outcome of this as everybody knows, what it means.

Winner in Egypt

Winner in Saudi Arabia
Just for contrast; Egypt wasn't resourceful so the dictator had to step down and the Saudi Arabia was resourceful and she killed "Arab Spring" in the bud.

On other hand, countries that have not controlled the population, the outburst of young population with not as much job opportunities have become politically and economically unstable. The "Arab Spring" and the spread of instability in the Middle East are an illustration of outcome of unbalanced population.


We know, three dominant systems that revolves around distinct entities; Libertarianism around Man (individual), Socialism around State and Religion around God. The rest are either offshoots of these or composite of them. If one reads their literature and listens and watches their scholars, each of these three systems speak of rationalism and logic and promises humans certain things. Have they been successful to accomplish their promises? None of these three systems have been successful to accomplish any of their promises and their promises are still for future.

Socialism came as the most rational system with sound philosophical and historical reasoning (historical dialectic) and promised classless societies. Although, I don't believe in its fundamentals but I have respect for this system because right in times when communism movements were strong and spreading, Marxist intellectuals and philosophers accepted its failures and started to revise its fundamentals. The Frankfurt school is well known Philosophical movement. Both China and Russia have revised their systems. Although, they haven't found an alternative but they didn't insist on the absolutism of their systems. This is an attitude of growth.

Religions in general promises brotherhood, equality of humans and paradise in return for good deeds. Ironically, the more religious a place or a country is, the deeper are the hatred, prejudices and discrimination of all kinds and all these are justified by name of God. When passengers, laborers and students are killed because they were infidel to God, shrines are destroyed because they are signs of infidelity, historical statues are bombed because they challenge the status of God then no doubt, everybody understands, what they mean when they shout "God is the greatest". All those stories of brotherhood, equality and justice appear no more than fairy tales as everyday we watch on our screens slaughtering of people, hate speeches, insults and offensive attacks on each other beliefs and determinations to cleanse the earth of infidels. The absence of brotherhood and equality are clear failure of religion but I know, it doesn't makes difference as there is no room for thinking and there are endless excuses and justifications.

Libertarianism, although relatively more humane but still have failed. It has failed because it assumes that all individuals have equal capabilities and out-competing others are fair enough.  The results are amassing of excessive wealth, political power, control on information (main stream media) and privacy of people in the hands of top competitors that are small percentage of society. These have hindered effectively the economic mobility, health, education and active participation of majority. The excessive amassing of wealth and political power have been used more for destructive purposes than constructive purposes (The World is over-armed and peace is underfunded.. Ban Ki-Moon) and this have affected millions of civilians across the globe who don't care about politics at all and their lives revolve around their ordinary joys. The increasing limitation of freedoms and powerlessness of billions of people over their fates are nothing but the failure of this system.

Each of this systems are assumed to be based on some fundamental truths and ask for submission to them. When one submits, he/she put his/her confidence to the thing he/she has submitted and he/she no more speaks for himself/herself but rather rationalizes and provides explanations for what he/she has submitted to.

End of Part I 

No comments:

Post a Comment