The Limitations of Human Rationalism
“Cogito, ergo sum. Stultus es, quia cogitas? Hmm.”
Descarte’s Question to Modernity
Synopsis
Rationalism while individually a noble concept has sometimes led humanity astray within the context of war and violence. Despite the advances in logic, reason, and humanistic ideals, history is replete with instances where this ideology has resulted in catastrophic consequences. By examining historical precedents, such as World War I, and delving into the inherent limitations of rationalism devoid of emotional intelligence, this essay seeks to elucidate how the neglect of empathy and ethical considerations has perpetuated conflicts and hindered human evolution.
Rationalism in Historical Context
In the lead-up to World War I, rationalist thinking dominated the political landscape of Europe. Nations engaged in strategic calculations based on rational self-interest, alliances, and military capabilities. The belief in the rationality of war, coupled with a sense of nationalistic fervor, fueled by ideals of national pride and superiority, led to a catastrophic global conflict. The rational pursuit of geopolitical objectives overshadowed the human toll of war, resulting in millions of lives lost and irreversible devastation.
Detachment from Humanity
One of the inherent pitfalls of rationalism is its tendency to prioritize logical reasoning over empathy and understanding. Leaders and policymakers, driven by rational calculations, often overlook the human cost of their decisions. The detachment from the human element reduces individuals to mere statistics or pawns in a geopolitical game, making it easier to justify violence and conflict in pursuit of perceived rational objectives, i.e. the ends justify the means. This lack of emotional intelligence perpetuates cycles of violence and hinders genuine progress toward peace and harmony.
Who Defines What Is “Rational“?
What one considers rational can often be considered irrational by another due to differences in perspective, values, and cultural norms. For example, the decision to engage in a war might be rational for one nation seeking to defend its sovereignty or pursue strategic interests, but it could be deemed irrational by another nation viewing diplomacy and negotiation as more prudent approaches to resolving conflicts. Cultural clashes are replete with incidents of mislabeling the other’s worldview as irrational. Similarly, in interpersonal relationships, what one person perceives as a rational course of action based on their beliefs and experiences may seem irrational to someone with a different worldview. This discrepancy highlights the subjective nature of rationality and the importance of considering diverse perspectives when evaluating the rationality of a decision or action.
The End Game
To break free from the perpetuation of wars and violence, humanity must transcend the limitations of rationalism and embrace a more holistic approach that integrates both rational thought and emotional intelligence. By examining the lessons of the past, it becomes evident that a purely rational approach devoid of empathy and ethical considerations is insufficient for promoting genuine progress and evolution. To move forward as a global society, we must transcend the limitations of rationalism and embrace a more holistic approach that integrates both logic and compassion. Only then can we truly get out of our heads and into our hearts, fostering genuine understanding and paving the way toward a more just, peaceful, and harmonious world.
(Author’s Note: For my discussion on how other belief systems and religions have also been contributing factors to wars and violence, there are several articles on this blog, including https://keithmlyndaker.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/its-about-blood/).
Slow Mover 