Irrational Humanity

During World War I, a number of bohemian, pacifist, rich-enough-to-wait-out-the-war-in-Zurich, artistic types, looked at the insanity of that conflict, and decided that it was an indictment of western rationalism. They formed an art movement called "Dada" (which is either German for a child's toy or is simply a nonsense word) and glorified the IRrational. Somehow or other, this rejection of the rational would produce a better world than the one of industrialized mass-murder and domination of European so-called "civilization."

Personally, I was always confused as to how that was supposed to work. It seems to me that the insanity of World War I (and previous and later instances of large-scale insanity such as The Inquisition, Stalinism, World War II, The Holocaust) although clearly the work of thousands of seemingly sane individuals calming working away within functioning bureaucratic structures, were examples not of the dangers of rationalism but of how root-irrationalities can inspire ordinary people to commit monstrous acts. This is to say, that it is the kernel of irrational belief that infects all the surrounding rational actors working to fulfill a final goal based on nonsense. Religious delusion. Racism. Nationalism.

It has always seemed so clear to me that embracing the irrational was dangerous. In this I was inspired by the writings of Bertrand Russell who said that emotions and appetites can lead people astray. Anger, lust, love, pleasure, despair, etc., ... letting these dominate the self can make a person bounce around like a pinball from one temporary diversion to another, or even lead to premature death. Russell said to always let your actions be governed by calm reflection away from the heats of passion. I tried to subscribe to this to the best of my abilities. But, obviously, it was impossible. To my chagrin, reading a biography of Russell revealed to me that he was even less successful in following his own prescription. Oh well.

So, the other day I read this interview at Vox.com with Justin E. H. Smith, author of  Irrationality: A History of the Dark Side of Reason. About the book:

Discovering that reason is the defining feature of our species, we named ourselves the “rational animal.” But is this flattering story itself rational? In this sweeping account of irrationality from antiquity to today—from the fifth-century BC murder of Hippasus for revealing the existence of irrational numbers to the rise of Twitter mobs and the election of Donald Trump—Justin Smith says the evidence suggests the opposite. From sex and music to religion and war, irrationality makes up the greater part of human life and history.

Bits n' pieces of the interview:

Sean Illing
Some examples of this will help clarify what you mean, but first let’s back up a little. We have this idea, which goes all the way back to Aristotle, that human beings are distinguished from other animals by their capacity for reason. Is this a misleading picture? Should we not think of humans as uniquely rational creatures?
Justin E.H. Smith
This is the traditional view. There is a counter-tradition, however, which says that human beings are the uniquely irrational animal. On this view, animals are rational to the extent that they do not get mired in deliberation and hesitation, but always just cut right to the chase and execute those actions that are perfectly suited to the sort of creatures they are, while we human beings stand there paralyzed by doubt and worry.
I am sympathetic to this view, though it can be carried too far. Obviously, we have been able to choose the correct course of action enough of the time to survive long enough to reproduce. We are a successful species, but not exceptionally so, and as far as I can tell not in virtue of being exceptionally well-endowed with reason.
Sean Illing
That’s certainly one way to think of rationality. By that standard, you might say that human beings are cursed with too much consciousness, that our obsession with thinking creates more problems than it solves.
Justin E.H. Smith
You might say that. But it’s not as if we think just because we are obsessed with thinking. Presumably, we human beings, as well as our hominid and pre-hominid ancestors, thought for a very long time before we began thinking about how this is possible and how it can go wrong.
...
Sean Illing
I wonder where all this leaves us. There are obviously limits to reason, and we can only do so much to curb our worst impulses. At the same time, we want a world that is more intelligent, more wise, more compassionate. But we also have to base our social and political systems on a realistic model of human nature.
Justin E.H. Smith
I don’t really have any formulas to offer here. Caution, pragmatism, case-by-case consideration of questions of justice, all seem advisable to me. I am not a political theorist, let alone a policymaker, and I think I manage to get to the end of the book without pretending to be either of these.
In spite of everything I’ve said, I believe in some amount of redistributive justice, including taking away about 99.9 percent of the fortunes of Bezos, Zuckerberg, and others, and turning the big tech companies into public utilities. I just think this should be done with good laws and broad public support, in such a way as to make it inevitable and ultimately painless for everyone (after all, these men would still be multimillionaires after the great confiscation).
...
Sean Illing
I’ll ask what might seem like a strange question: What’s the utility of irrationality in human life? How do our irrational instincts actually serve us?
Justin E.H. Smith
I place a lot of good things under the heading “irrationality” — not just dreams but also drunkenness, stonedness, artistic creation, listening to stories by the campfire, enjoyment of music and dancing, all sorts of orgiastic revelry, mass events like concerts and sports matches, and so on. I think most people would agree that these things make life worth living. And I think it’s impossible to account for the value of these things in purely utilitarian terms.

Personally, I'd say it's not so much trying to impose rationality on people. It's deluding yourself that your ideas/beliefs are so fucking rational that everybody has to conform to them or else they're stupid fuckwads who must all be slaughtered. Which is to say: "Irrationally imposing one's own belief system on others produces even more irrationality." That, plus the fact that to live as a functioning animal demands that we believe in things even though life is pointless.

But, you know, having studied a lot of history from the perspective of the British/US-American/Anglo-Canadian historians, I'm sympathetic to the idea that the way of gradual, incremental change is the most lasting way forward. Say what you want about the British ruling classes, but you can't deny the longevity of their social structure. And however much this is based on their being able to develop on an Island fortress, and from wealth stolen from other lands, or any other reason; some of that longevity must come from the way they have been able to incorporate change. Some of this change included incorporating ideas from revolutions planned and carried out elsewhere. But flexible stability is flexible stability.

I have, for a long time, decried the idea of some vague, all-encompassing revolution, to solve all our problems. I also reject overly-complicated strategies that require everything to fall into place and quickly. I have long argued that "Workers as Citizens" is both simple enough; in conformity with hegemonic ideas enough, and etc., etc., enough that it is the way forward.

Well, that's it for today. Maybe I'll put in some links later. But I've got shit to do.