Rationalism is generally recognized as a philosophical, and also a theological term. But, like so many abstract terms, rationalism is many different things. According to Webster’s Dictionary, in philosophy rationalism is the theory that reason, rather than the senses, is the true source of knowledge, whereas in theology it is the rather questionable doctrine that rejects revelation and the supernatural, giving reason as the one and only source of religious knowledge.
Rejecting such understanding of rationalism as defective and incomplete, I suggest that in order to be made acceptable and properly associated with the names of Dèscartes and Kant, among the greatest rationalists, we must see rationalism not as a theory, and even less as a doctrine, but as an alternative method of inquiry, and only in such complementary capacity can it be philosophically acceptable and scientifically valid.
Promoted to a philosophical credo, this “absolutist” rationalism turns itself into a joke, opening a floodgate for sarcastic questions, such as my own: Is it an out-of-wedlock child of rationality or rationality neutered?
One of the best impressions of this type of arrogant Rationalism comes to us in the following parable, told by Schopenhauer in his Parerga und Paralipomena:
"A mother gave her children Aesop’s Fables to read, in the hope of educating and improving their minds; but they very soon brought the book back, and the eldest, wise beyond his years, delivered himself in this fashion: “This is no book for us; it is much too childish and stupid. You cannot make us believe that foxes and wolves and ravens are able to talk; we’ve got beyond stories of that kind!” …In these young hopefuls you have the enlightened Rationalists of the future."
The great American movie Miracle On 34th Street is a superb variation on Schopenhauer’s parable, as long as we accept it as an allegory, rather than as a fantasy. It comes to us with the cheerful ending of rationalism defeated, which must not be mistaken for rationalism bamboozled. It is in this capacity, not as a theory, and not even as a method, but as a social attitude, that I am discussing it here. Schopenhauer would have liked this movie very much!
But what might he say about the modern system of American education and the literature curriculum in American schools? American society has indeed nose-dived a long-long way down from the gentle idealism of Miracle On 34th Street toward the wise beyond our years caricature of the post-progressive education and political correctness. In the process, distinctive American innocence has been lost, the nation’s wonderful sense of humor has mutated into offensive and tasteless vulgarity, which none seem to mind anymore: after all, this is the only freedom of irreverent speech society can afford these days.
Rejecting such understanding of rationalism as defective and incomplete, I suggest that in order to be made acceptable and properly associated with the names of Dèscartes and Kant, among the greatest rationalists, we must see rationalism not as a theory, and even less as a doctrine, but as an alternative method of inquiry, and only in such complementary capacity can it be philosophically acceptable and scientifically valid.
Promoted to a philosophical credo, this “absolutist” rationalism turns itself into a joke, opening a floodgate for sarcastic questions, such as my own: Is it an out-of-wedlock child of rationality or rationality neutered?
One of the best impressions of this type of arrogant Rationalism comes to us in the following parable, told by Schopenhauer in his Parerga und Paralipomena:
"A mother gave her children Aesop’s Fables to read, in the hope of educating and improving their minds; but they very soon brought the book back, and the eldest, wise beyond his years, delivered himself in this fashion: “This is no book for us; it is much too childish and stupid. You cannot make us believe that foxes and wolves and ravens are able to talk; we’ve got beyond stories of that kind!” …In these young hopefuls you have the enlightened Rationalists of the future."
The great American movie Miracle On 34th Street is a superb variation on Schopenhauer’s parable, as long as we accept it as an allegory, rather than as a fantasy. It comes to us with the cheerful ending of rationalism defeated, which must not be mistaken for rationalism bamboozled. It is in this capacity, not as a theory, and not even as a method, but as a social attitude, that I am discussing it here. Schopenhauer would have liked this movie very much!
But what might he say about the modern system of American education and the literature curriculum in American schools? American society has indeed nose-dived a long-long way down from the gentle idealism of Miracle On 34th Street toward the wise beyond our years caricature of the post-progressive education and political correctness. In the process, distinctive American innocence has been lost, the nation’s wonderful sense of humor has mutated into offensive and tasteless vulgarity, which none seem to mind anymore: after all, this is the only freedom of irreverent speech society can afford these days.
No comments:
Post a Comment