You're confusing two statements: "emotions and irrationality play a big role in people's poltics" and "emotions and irrationality should play a big role in people's politics". The former is undoubtedly true. I hope no one would argue against being rational and objective in matters of, say, world economics or armed conflict.
If critical thought is at odds with irrationality and emotion, then that is a conflict that must be resolved in favour of critical thinking, if democracy is to survive. Carefully considering the arguments for and against political statements is a good thing. I (again) hope no one would argue against that.
However, I reject the notion that critical thought is necessarily liberal. There's nothing in theories of critical thought that's inherently opposed to conservative values. I do not believe critical thinking is a drive towards any particular school of political thought. It is a drive towards knowledge.
> You're confusing two statements: "emotions and irrationality play a big role in people's poltics" and "emotions and irrationality should play a big role in people's politics". The former is undoubtedly true. I hope no one would argue against being rational and objective in matters of, say, world economics or armed conflict.
Actually, there's another question that should be asked: Is conducting ourselves rationally even possible? If not -- the question whether we should be rational might become moot. There is no doubt that some of our decisions can be, and are, rational. But could all of them be rational? Are humans capable of being 100% rational? I think the answer is a resounding no. In that case the problem shifts from being binary to a question of degree. To what degree are we, or should we be rational?
> If critical thought is at odds with irrationality and emotion, then that is a conflict that must be resolved in favour of critical thinking
I'm not so sure about that either. If every question could have a rational answer, would you like our affairs to be handled by a rational artificial intelligence? Issac Asimov discussed this, and he, too, points in the negative direction.
The question of rationality becomes irrevocably complex when you start asking what is our goal. If our goal is to maximize human happiness and minimize human suffering, then, clearly, we wouldn't even be able to agree on concrete missions as happiness and suffering are both subjective. Some people would place honor ahead of survival. If we can't even place a value on the most basic of ideals -- life -- what hope do we have of assigning value to lesser ones? For example, the protagonist of Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground derives joy from being spitefully irrational and from taking actions that cause him harm. Spite is what gives him happiness. How could you reconcile this very human need for spite with rationality?
> I reject the notion that critical thought is necessarily liberal.
You are right, but I think conservative thinking clashes with rationality more often. By its very nature, conservatism places importance on held beliefs and is less open to changing values based on new findings. Liberals tend to think that human existence is a solvable problem given enough information and enough analysis.
If critical thought is at odds with irrationality and emotion, then that is a conflict that must be resolved in favour of critical thinking, if democracy is to survive. Carefully considering the arguments for and against political statements is a good thing. I (again) hope no one would argue against that.
However, I reject the notion that critical thought is necessarily liberal. There's nothing in theories of critical thought that's inherently opposed to conservative values. I do not believe critical thinking is a drive towards any particular school of political thought. It is a drive towards knowledge.
reply