%
% The Problems of Philosophical Consistency and Rationality
%
% Reuben Thomas    2/11/91
%
% Converted from Impression to LaTeX 18/11/95
% Converted to LaTeX2e 6/3/96
% Copyright notice added 14/4/96
% PDF-ized and italics changed to emphases 29/1/98
% Removed explicit pslatex stuff 28/4/99
% Made HeVeA-friendly 1/5/06
%


\documentclass[english]{article}
\usepackage{a4,babel,copyrght}


\frenchspacing

\renewcommand{\copyrightyear}{1991}


\title{The Problems of Philosophical Consistency and Rationality}
\author{Reuben Thomas}
\date{2nd November 1991}
\begin{document}
\maketitle

Philosophy is often viewed as a science, and philosophers employ
rigorous reasoning, often with the assistance of formal logic. For
some considerations, such as syllogisms and the structure of time,
this sort of reasoning is appropriate, but when debating the
fundamentals of philosophy, for example the existence of god or
epistemology, and especially when constructing a personal philosophy,
this type of reasoning can be unhelpful, and even dangerous.

The attraction of consistency and rationality is that they offer a
complete solution to all life's problems, which can be resolved
instantly, and with unwavering certitude. A fully rational and
consistent philosophy is elegant, simple, and universal, with the
added attraction of being scientific. Such philosophies are implied in
the ten commandments, in law, and in many other philosophical systems,
such as utilitarianism. However, the tenure of such a philosophy in
the face of an irrational, inconsistent universe results in
narrowmindedness, inflexibility, and inhumanity.

Rationality is to consider a situation logically, and, from certain
premises, often justified in terms of other, more basic axioms, to
deduce the correct course of action to take, or opinion to hold. One
example of its dangers is solipsism, the belief that one's self is the
only thing that exists. There is no way of proving this belief to be
false, there is not even any evidence that it is false. Thus,
rationally, it is an excellent belief to hold, and indeed a
solipsistic statement, ``Cogito ergo sum'', was the basis of
Descartes' philosophy.

Yet solipsism has frightening consequences. ``There is a monstrous
difference between thinking of another person as ontologically
real...and thinking of that person as a useful construct based on the
patterns of your phaneron. [the world of our experience]'' wrote
Martin Gardner.\footnote{Gardner, M., \emph{The WHYS of a
    Philosophical Scrivener}} How can you behave ethically (except for
expediency) when other people do not exist? And not just solipsism,
but rationality in general, leads to a cold, clinical attitude towards
life.

Consistency is similar to rationality, but less extreme: it does not
require reasoning, but only that all equivalent situations are dealt
with in exactly the same manner. As a result, it suffers from the same
sorts of problems. For example, the Children Act (1989) states that
``a fixed policy regarding punishments [in schools] must be made
accessible to staff \emph{and} parents,'' that is to say, punishments
must be consistent.\footnote{\emph{Quelle} No. 53, \emph{Child's
    Play}, wording and italics from article, not quoted directly from
  the Act.} But most people would agree that that is wrong: that the
punishment should fit not only the crime, but the criminal, taking
into account his previous behaviour, his current emotional
circumstances, and so on. Accepting consistency means losing an
ability to differentiate between individuals, and to treat each on his
own terms. More seriously, whole cultures may thus be judged barbaric
and worthy of extermination, by ignoring their own system of ethics,
and judging them according to ours: this reasoning has been the cause
of many wars and other human tragedies throughout history.

There are other, more pragmatic, reasons why consistency and
rationality are a hindrance. Consistency especially leads to
inflexibility, narrowmindedness, and an inability to change views.
This results in a dull character, unlikely to succeed, if unlikely to
fail, unable to take advantage of opportunities. On a larger scale,
consistency results in intellectual and social stagnation, and
ultimately to cultural extinction. Even from a rational point of view
this is not a good result. Rationality leads to a lack of imagination,
of inspiration, and, while the result may not be as disastrous as
consistency (for rationality does not necessarily imply consistency),
it certainly makes for a humdrum existence, and a loss of humanity, so
important at a time when the human scale is rapidly being submerged by
technology.

There are, however, still philosophical problems with discarding
consistency and rationality. Their very failings are strengths in
helping to simplify complex arguments, and leave them without
contradictions. Without rationality and consistency, you cannot
progress from axiom to theorem. I would argue that this point of view
is itself too rational, and Martin Gardner writes ``in the absence of
compelling counterarguments, emotions can be legitimate grounds for
metaphysical jumps''. Why, after all, should we accept reason as the
only basis for philosophical argument, and exclude the other half of
our nature from debate about crucial issues?

Support for this idea is implicit in the observation that throughout
history, there have been hardly any philosophers who professed
solipsism, certainly no sane ones, and similarly philosophers are
notorious for at least appearing to contradict themselves. For
example, Thomas S. Kuhn claims on the one hand that different
paradigms are incommensurable, and on the other that there can be
communication between proponents of different paradigms. More
fundamentally, it is noticeable that often the disciples of any one
philosopher always proclaim his philosophy in a more extreme form than
the philosopher himself. This is because there is more to most
philosophies than is written down: they also consist in the underlying
assumptions of their author, which he may feel are too obvious to
require stating, or of which he may even be unaware.

Most importantly, man is an emotional creature, and it is ridiculous
to ignore his capacities and capabilities in that direction. The need
for emotion does not need to be defended to the rationalists: if we
did not need emotion to survive, we should not have it, we should have
evolved out of it. Emotion is not like the appendix, a mere
encumbrance, but manifestly directs much of our lives. Inconsistency
and irrationality can be strengths, providing unorthodox solutions to
problems which may have seemed insoluble: most of the great scientific
and mathematical discoveries ever made were the result of sudden
inspiration, which rational processes can aid, but never create, and
there are many anecdotes of miraculous escapes from calamity which
relied on luck and daring. Moreover, even a consistent rationalist can
aim to be happy, but happiness is not a goal that can be achieved
purely through rationality and consistency, is not even easy to
achieve purposely, but is most often attained unlooked for by people
who just get on with living, exploring what is possible, and
exercising that gift which is our unique privilege: their humanity.


\vfill
\section*{Acknowledgements}

Thanks once more to Jeremy Douglas for proofreading, and making
suggestions.


\end{document}
