Originally published at Writer's Blog. Please leave any comments there.

A friend wrote an entry yesterday that got me thinking - the natural state of so-called 'rational thinkers' is, at best, skepticism and, at worst, out-right cynicism and condescension. The rational thinker realizes that there is always something more to learn, something more to know. He realizes that never in his life will he be able to get his mind around everything there is to know and experience; he realizes that any conclusion he comes to is going to be prone to error. Every fact and tidbit is subject to revision as more data is received, processed, and catalogued. Doubt and uncertainty become, to some extent, a way of life because everything the rationalist knows is subject to change, given the right sort of revelations (usually involving new things coming from the scientific community).

So it's ironic, then, that the more knowledge one possesses, the less rational that person can become. Human beings are, by their very natures, emotional creatures. Everything we do and think involves an emotional factor, an irrational reaction that rationality by itself often cannot predict or counter. Because everything the rationalist knows can be called into question, can be subject to revision, there is an inherent emotional stressor (called doubt) present that often goes unidentified, one that, if left unchecked, can actually undermine the very process of rational thought.

The rationalist attempts to logically work his way through a problem area, using critical thinking as his primary tool. He works from a set of presuppositions based on those bits of knowledge he already possesses and has been able to fit together, leaving any of them open to revision in the event he finds that the new information he has just gleaned sheds some new light on any of those beliefs. He neglects, however, to account for the seemingly random emotional factor, disregarding it as unimportant exactly because it is not 'rational.' So, when he is faced with a confrontational factor during this rational process, he is frequently unable to deal with it and locks down his rational system, ultimately by walling himself behind those things he already believes and sees as 'safe' and solid because those are the things he has already worked through and believes to be true. As a result any information that was presented in a confrontational manner is disregarded as illogical and irrational - whether or not it actually is - because it evoked an adverse, stressful emotional response. This decision is typically reinforced when it is philosophical in nature, when it is something that rational science cannot itself examine directly.

The presupposed way of thinking is, therefore, reinforced - it's safe and does not make the rational thinker feel stressed or upset. It is ordered, structured, logical and is thus deemed to be the better conclusion of the two.

Sometimes, then, rational thinking can, in fact, be an emotional reaction and therefore be the more irrational of the two. True rational thought should recognize the presence of emotion and not only prevent it from ruling the thought process but should take it into account and even integrate it.

Share This

Tags: & critical thinking, logic, philosophy, rationality

Originally published at Writer's Blog. Please leave any comments there.

365 tomorrows :: View topic - October 9th, RELUCTANT

Someone over at the 365 Tomorrows forum recently observed that a lot of sci-fi first contact stories end with humanity blowing themselves up (and often the alien beings, as well). And it’s true - sci-fi is, among other things, often a cynical foray into prophetic speculation. We observe humanity in the world around us, we see the violence and degradation proliferating through all cultures on the planet, and then we write our stories and discover that the people in the books look disquietingly like people today. Big surprise, huh?

Not all sci-fi is bleak and cynical, of course, but a large part of it is. Every story is an expression of the author, so some part of the author is conveyed into the setting and tone of the story and the portrayal of the characters. Folks who write sci-fi also tend to be the rational sort, and in my experience rational people also tend to be highly cynical, and we see that in a lot of stories. Sure, most sci-fi is about hope, about seeing mankind stretch his own limits and exceed his boundaries, but we just can’t help but think that in some ways, mankind will never, ever change. The stories themselves are usually no less entertaining for it - after all, every story needs some sort of conflict in order to work well - but that bleak outlook on the future condition of men’s souls will probably always be a major underlying theme in the science fiction genre.

Tags: philosophy, speculative fiction