Rationalism and egoism are entirely at odds: the first is about reason and objective reality and the second is the elevation of one's own preferences, desires, and conveniences over reason and morality. All selfishness is derived from at least partial egoism, and genuine, consistent rationalism is the opposite of this--it is about realizing the various ways in which logic and reality as a whole are not subject to one's whims. In spite of this, rationalists might sometimes find themselves slandered by those who think no one pursues rationality for anything but ego or personal gain. This kind of fool thinks that the rationalist pursues reason consistently and thoroughly at least in part out of a desire to seem elevated above others or benefit their own life.
No one would align with the very thing that reveals their preferences are meaningless where they deviate from reality if they were just living for themselves. The nature of reason is that it transcends anyone's individual desires! No one could think, live, and speak as a rationalist only to be motivated by ego without being tainted by deep hypocrisy at best. It should take no more than a handful of consecutive moments for anyone to realize this, but there are some who would rather accuse thorough rationalists of being motivated by pride--as if motivations invalidate any of the philosophical claims of a rationalist anyway--than simply admit that they are ideologically mistaken, inconsistent, and shallow!
If a rationalist does feel or think that he or she is superior to anti-rationalists, they are not the one mistaken. They do have a superior grasp of reason and bent towards truth, which puts them closer to the thing without which nothing is true: objective reality. Either truth matters or it does not. If it does matter, non-rationalists are not aligned with the only thing that has significance (yes, any objective meaning is grounded in God, but objective significance still could not exist unless logic permitted it); if it does not, rationalists still possess a true worldview and a superior intellect by default. Non-rationalists are on a lower ideological status than rationalists either way.
All fallacies, assumptions, contradictions, and errors of any kind are embraced out of a baseline level of sheer stupidity, but perhaps an additional reason stands behind the claim that rationalists seek recognition to inflate their egos. When a non-rationalist sees insincerity and inconsistency within himself or herself, they might choose to assume that no one else could escape the same flaws, as if any given flaw is inescapable in the first place. In other words, it often takes an egoist to suspect that a genuine rationalist simply wants to appear deserving of acknowledgment and praise. Projection of one's own deficiencies onto others is, of course, to commit the fallacy of composition and make mere assumptions about others.
No matter the angle from which it is approached, the objection that rationalists merely want to appease their own egos by feeling superior to others is objectively erroneous and irrelevant to the inherent truth of rationalism as it is. This represents yet another attempt to slander or sidestep rationalists rather than simply confront the fact that absolute certainty and genuine consistency are not unattainable. The deficiencies of the objectors only reveal their own errors. It is one thing to be wrong, but to cling to an error compounds the problem by introducing the true egoism. Ultimately, it is anti-rationalists and non-rationalists who are slaves to their own preferences, assumptions, and apathy towards reason and truth, making them egoists of a sort.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment