Modern age is dancing dizzily around two Golden Calves called money and reaon. Money is the ability to control the fellow beings' behaviour, reason is the capability of regulating notions beyond mere abstraction of perception, thus establishing principles. It is this kind of reason the continuous specialization, divison of tasks and functional differentiation modern societies consist of. And this is quite a remarkable procedure, for the guiding principle of reason actually suggests indivisibility. Principles are either valid or not; but they are not partly valid. So how come that the indivisible principle of Reason has generated so many different social domains with their own prcedures? The answer to that question will not least determine if a consent-based society seems possible at all.
The concept of Reason is entirely based on a two-sided form which defines a scope of decision. This two-sidedness is represented by the values true and false. Accordingly, a way of thinking will count as reasonable if its decision prefers the true value and consciously dismisses the false one. This does not only go for theory, but for practice, too; rational action is a right way of behaving which satisfies the truth criterion. So what is right will be what is true.
So much for the principle. The drab monotony of everyday life looks quite different. Whichever way we can look at it, trying to take every aspect into account, making a truth-oriented decision - a second person will show up, contradict, sometimes even vehemently and declares the thought to be unrasonable. This calls for a third person who is eager to point out his view which as expected says his previous speakers are wrong. And number four is already preparing himself. The truism that too many cooks spoil the broth is not restricted to the culinary field. Take, for instance, the reform of social security systems: Party X will suggest A, party Y will prefer B, C will be agreed upon. Party Z will brand technical shortcomings which inhibt C from turning into D. After all, party Z will side with trade association a and will prove the entire debate will only result in E. That is why it will suggest to discuss the issue rather principally with reference to aspect 1. Now social associations will seize the opportunity to deny aspect 1 energetically. Well, that is the way time passes.
Someone who takes none of these sides has two options; either one chooses the simple way and disputes the reason in each case. Or one suspects that reason as the higher principle of order can only generate several partial rationalities which are each on their own justified, but do not fit together in total. To put it differently: One has a feeling (sic!) that rationality alone is no gurantee for reason. So what might be a microeconomic blessing might be a macroeconomic jeopardy; or what might be necessary in terms of social peace might weaken the economy which in turn can also threaten the social peace. So reason is a reasonable construction, for everybody maintains to be endowed with it, until he notices he is not the only one claiming it. And now the real inquiry begins. So reason lies exclusively in the proceeding selection between the true/false alternative, but not in the decision itself. Thus, reason keeps things going but finds no end. The end can only be declared for the sake of governmental reason, allowing to lock everybody in who dares doubt if this is a reasonable procedure.
In short, modern societies do not suffer from a lack of reason; quitze the contrary, in forming different pressure groups with specific standards of reason they have succeeded in handling the problem of Reason rationally. But - it is far from being intelligent, for being intelligent means in contrast to being rational establishing a perspective within which an option between true and false can be formulated in the first place. But by membership of a political party, an association or whatever a given perspective has already been accepted. So dealing with the true-false distinction will be something ready-made, expectable, ritual. Everybody has heard about resonable arguments in favour of or against the reform of Public Health Service.
This is incidentally another reason for public annoyance. We sense the controversy is highly rational. And just for that reason we intelligently mistrust all the rational competitors.
The concept of Reason is entirely based on a two-sided form which defines a scope of decision. This two-sidedness is represented by the values true and false. Accordingly, a way of thinking will count as reasonable if its decision prefers the true value and consciously dismisses the false one. This does not only go for theory, but for practice, too; rational action is a right way of behaving which satisfies the truth criterion. So what is right will be what is true.
So much for the principle. The drab monotony of everyday life looks quite different. Whichever way we can look at it, trying to take every aspect into account, making a truth-oriented decision - a second person will show up, contradict, sometimes even vehemently and declares the thought to be unrasonable. This calls for a third person who is eager to point out his view which as expected says his previous speakers are wrong. And number four is already preparing himself. The truism that too many cooks spoil the broth is not restricted to the culinary field. Take, for instance, the reform of social security systems: Party X will suggest A, party Y will prefer B, C will be agreed upon. Party Z will brand technical shortcomings which inhibt C from turning into D. After all, party Z will side with trade association a and will prove the entire debate will only result in E. That is why it will suggest to discuss the issue rather principally with reference to aspect 1. Now social associations will seize the opportunity to deny aspect 1 energetically. Well, that is the way time passes.
Someone who takes none of these sides has two options; either one chooses the simple way and disputes the reason in each case. Or one suspects that reason as the higher principle of order can only generate several partial rationalities which are each on their own justified, but do not fit together in total. To put it differently: One has a feeling (sic!) that rationality alone is no gurantee for reason. So what might be a microeconomic blessing might be a macroeconomic jeopardy; or what might be necessary in terms of social peace might weaken the economy which in turn can also threaten the social peace. So reason is a reasonable construction, for everybody maintains to be endowed with it, until he notices he is not the only one claiming it. And now the real inquiry begins. So reason lies exclusively in the proceeding selection between the true/false alternative, but not in the decision itself. Thus, reason keeps things going but finds no end. The end can only be declared for the sake of governmental reason, allowing to lock everybody in who dares doubt if this is a reasonable procedure.
In short, modern societies do not suffer from a lack of reason; quitze the contrary, in forming different pressure groups with specific standards of reason they have succeeded in handling the problem of Reason rationally. But - it is far from being intelligent, for being intelligent means in contrast to being rational establishing a perspective within which an option between true and false can be formulated in the first place. But by membership of a political party, an association or whatever a given perspective has already been accepted. So dealing with the true-false distinction will be something ready-made, expectable, ritual. Everybody has heard about resonable arguments in favour of or against the reform of Public Health Service.
This is incidentally another reason for public annoyance. We sense the controversy is highly rational. And just for that reason we intelligently mistrust all the rational competitors.
No comments:
Post a Comment