Rationality with no regards for Reason

In an earlier blog entry sometime last year I sought to expand what might be considered rational, however I'm not sure if I made this distinction between making a rational decision and making a decision according to reason. The two are not the same, and is significant to make note of it. What is rational to me is not necessarily rational to another, where reason tends to lack the same connotative plurality and ambiguity in what is rational. Therefore I can rationalize even the most unreasonable actions, in fact most of my poorer decisions are highly rationalized. Working at Borders Books part time I manage to rationalize buying "just one more book" three times a week or so. Needless to say, my speed-reading is not up to the task of my bibliophobic tendencies. This book-buying addiction is perhaps rational for me since my duties and hobbies include reading and study...though I neglect other possible consequences and rational actions in pursuit of personal interest. Perhaps it is this personal interest that is driving a wedge between a rational decision and a rational decision in accordance with reason. I have not yet suggested what is meant by reason and I don't expect to put forward a concrete definition of the term since words by their very nature are adapted and conformed to those who rationalize. Free reason is characterized by its fluidity, its dynamism; though it is limited by its awareness, by the possibilities at a socio-temporal point in history. Free reason, universal reason, transcendent reason then only exists in a single moment free of time and is gone as that moment passes. Reason is contingent upon circumstances then. And with the understanding that this is a multi-cultural world where rationality is not concretely defined, reason is a teleological notion, wherein lies the search for Truth among the differences that separate and mark existence. I'm not debating whether or not this teleological characterization of the concept is in fact pointing towards a divinity, or perhaps towards a greater understanding of ourselves, or perhaps towards new life-saving technology but it is pointing somewhere towards something. Can we associate reason with logic as we define it today or does that perhaps limit what can be reasonable? Are we preventing ourselves from understanding reason in the utilization of modern philosophical and mathematical logic, or perhaps defining reason a bit more linearly. This linear reasoning is where those in academia tend to fall (at least in my experience). The conditioning of an academic to logically assess any given situation is a very handy skill when analyzing business scenarios, when going into scientific fields, or going into any fields where predictability is important. But this approach only limits academics in how and why they think and research the way they do. Are we as academics making a contribution, helping to inform and inspire others to understand what is reasonable or are we merely arguing amongst our ourselves apart from non-academics (I use these terms loosely)? As academics we're perhaps cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world and later feeding their appetites to supply us with grant money for our research. Our rationalization of our lives becomes unreasonable since reason should encompass more than just personal gain. True reason has no place for 'us' and 'them' only Truth. An aside: I wouldn't hastely try to separate reason and art.

Liberal and Conservative and Praise of the Dollar

Growing up a conservative in Texas I addressed political matters in such a fashion as to embody enculturated virtues and values that include safety and responsibility to family, honesty, hospitality, responsibility and those specifically set out by church and school. Then being thrust into the northeast where conservatives are scarce and these same values are stressed perhaps in a different order, from a different perception, and to a varying degree, my original thoughts on politics seemed a bit one-sided. In other words my experience didn't match with my political perception. With this knowledge it is discouraging to find that most Americans still only see one-sided and think in terms of 'this or that' period. Evil and good are not always obvious, are not always black and white to the naked eye that is trained to see the difference between the two in a particular way. I then have to ask myself, when I speak normatively, how does my environment, do my friends, does my education inform my decision? With this knowledge, what criteria can I use to justify my judgment? As an American I live under the civil laws of my environment whether or not I agree with them, because I understand why they need be in place. This does not mean that I won't protest a law or take action against those laws that do not strike me as just, only that I understand the need for societies to maintain order. But as I just mentioned, these civil laws are intact for order within society, they are not the laws I turn to first in making judgments (at least I don't think so). Most of us make judgments based upon our own perception of values and what is virtuous...or perhaps some of us just follow suit...but what is shaping these values we cling to should be addressed before making any kind of political judgment.

It struck me a little off-guard when the 2004 election cited moral values as the deciding factor in the election and proceeded to list those important to Americans, i.e. homosexual issues, anti-abortion, etc. The striking part were the contradictory moral values that topped the chart. For instance how can a Christian love her neighbor as herself and hate homosexuals or those aborting babies? The polls lost me when they decided not to define what they meant by moral values or how the circumstances in the nation might be contributing to those perceived values...anyway, back to the point...

When we've come to the realization that perhaps we're biased in our point of view as a southern or northern, liberal or conservative then perhaps we can look at the current situation in America and make judgments aside from the liberal-slanted media, the conservative-slanted talk radio and more fundamental Christianity slant that we see on TBN. Many books I've attemted to read lately have had such a political slant one way that I have trouble reading them -- all the arguments lose me when they gloss important points without grounding or backing. What is left on the page is an emotional whining, not to put it too blatantly, that kills the credibility of an intelligible argument. Here I am not saying that objectivity with regards to developing an argument is absolutely possible, but it is mandatory that one consider their critics and the flaws in their own argument.

As much as I hate to say it, even the pulpits of American churches have promoted one political agenda over another in sermons that stress biblical backing for a particular political agenda. I'm not saying that politics doesn't have its place in church, but God comes first. Christians tend to lose sight of this. After September 11, 2001 I don't know how many churches decided to sing patriotic songs and salute the flag in worship, but they should be taken out back Texas style and flogged (hyperbolically of course). Church is not the place to lobby votes. People have their own brains and need not think that God will condemn them if they don't vote George Bush or whoever. What is even more disgusting is that much of these political Christian pushes negated mention of Scriptural warrant for actions other than out-of-context passages. It is scary to think of how many churches have decided comfort over the Christian way of living. Being a Christian is not comfortable. And when it is chances are one need ask himself whether he is living a Christian life set forth in Scripture. One need only look back to the legalization of Christianity under Constantine to see just how easy it is to slip into hierarchy, civil power, and the love of worldly wealth and prestige which have no place in the Christian religion. Many of these nominal Christians missed the Christian aim of love and support of the 'other' for the seemingly larger moral issues presented by elite Christian leaders in line to push particular political agendas that fill their own pockets with wealth. God bless capitalism...! Sheesh. The funnier part comes when liberal Christians and conservative Christians slander each other (biblically!). Beware Pat Robertson and others who influence many and find themselves oftentimes retracting statements made in slanderous situations.

Now the question must be asked, 'how does one interpret Scripture?' followed by 'what does one make of those situations not in Scripture (adiaphora)?' (if of course you are a Christian). The reason these must be asked is because Scripture carries with it ambiguity characteristic of analogic and metaphorical language (lending it it's freedom to speak to varying people varying things at varying places in time). My interpretation is not my wife's or my neighbors even though we all make up part of the Christian body. Who is right? The answer is not obvious and should not be thought to be, lest anyone think that they're Christianity is the only right Christianity (which is the point at which one stops being a real Christian).

So as a Christian, now that one is uncomfortable and does not have any easy answers to questions, let's talk about war. First of all, what is it? Is it a frame of mind that pins good needing to fight off evil? Is it action above of all? Is it violent? Is it necessary? Does it have to involve people? Can diplomatic debates be, in essence, war? Once a definition is given, is the 'war' in Iraq a war? Does it go further than just being war and become exploitation, personal gain, national gain? Is it merely pre-emptive? ............... This is a word game folks. Liberals and conservatives have been speculating and formulating arguments based on their own definition of this term and have bashed each other again and again with the hammer of their own personally-slanted statistics. So how then does one get passed the B.S. and rhetorical pollution of those radio and TV personalities we Americans have so much faith in, so that we can normatively think for ourselves? We can't. But we can actively take part by paying attention to current events, listening to others, attending and loving those less fortunate than ourselves, and then talking to others with dissenting opinions and different facts that may broaden our understanding of issues. In essence, as pinnacle parts of society (individuals in community), we have a responsibility to be informed and up-to-date on what is happening around us and in other parts of the world.

Did Bush go to war for oil, to take out a threat to world peace, for revenge, for American gain? There is no easy answer to this folks...statistics are flung around and waved in the faces of the masses all stating different numbers on similar issues (statisitics is not an exact math and most are taught to its somewhat skewed nature). I'm sick and tired of hearing those reasons that pit Bush as the anti-Christ, or as the savior of America without somewhat stable ground for such claims.

Working in a place where I have interaction with lots and lots of differing people in the northeast I am struck again and again by those people who judge Texans by the Bush standard, or judge southerners in general by such a standard (his demeanor, poor vocabulary, western/southern/Christian conservativism, etc). There is a vehement hatred that has lost any kind of rational basis for it. It's like a child who is mad at their parents but later forgets why they're supposed to be mad. The situation is reverse in other situations where Bush is the best thing that's happened to the country in years...he's an active president that's been needed. I say we all halt exaggeration which only stirs emotions within the masses, creating allegiances, and instills a powerful propagandic mindframe from which we tend to comment and act. When you tell your children that what they watch on TV and hear on the radio is fake, stick to your own advice and don't be duped.