Rationalism of knowledge: An essay beyond contemporariness

Working out the common perceptions of rationalism is an extremely dangerous venture in the present context of utilitarian system of organizational constitutions taking care of the learning-behaviors. Still the concept baffles us more often that anything else, as we are the ones hard put to conceive the idea into our lives. The present essay will put itself to understand the basic conjectures driving the cart of education in a broader sense. Learning, as a mean of the biped inhabitants using clothes to hide themselves (!!) in this third planet of the solar system for the understanding of the self and discernibly-nonself behavior and for the sustenance of their lives and societies, has long been classically accepted. But the phenomenon that put us into pondering over the problem is the overpowering importance attributed to the second causal justification, i.e. the utilitarian image of the contemporary education system.

It is true that the word ‘Rationalism’ in itself promulgates a utilitarian imagery, but the present rationale to look at ‘Rationalism’ itself demands questioning. The advent of the rationalism in the earthly history of learning can safely attributed to Rene Descartes, if not Aristotle, to go further back, or even further back Plato. Without inviting any controversy to decide this, the present essay will try to resurrect the definition of ‘Rationalism’ by respectful ruminations of the works of the masters in the realm, the dormant let-it-come-out-later intention being to reinvent knowledge as having the sole purpose of learning, shedding off the utilitarian fads it is ornamented with in the contemporary global perspective.

Thirteenth century:

Syllogism: Logic takes the form

‘Syllogism’ (<sullogismos) was the form what Aristotle had given to the system of ‘deductions’, thus conceiving ‘Logic’. According to him, ‘A deduction is speech (logos) in which, certain things having been supposed (protasis = premise), something different from those supposed results of necessity (sumperasma = conclusion) because of their being so’. Now comes the utmost challenge to make something out of this clause , one of many tongue-swirling-ones the latin scriptures (the translators?) has given us. But one phrase, which attracts attention, is the use of ‘results of necessity’…….“So Reverend Mr. Aristotle ! You had also been part of this utilitarian fad!” More and more we go through Aristotle’s works more this ‘all-for-well-being’ notion becomes clear. For instance for the counter process of ‘Induction’ (epagôgê) he never puts more effort than formulating this much that, ‘Induction’ is an ‘argument from the particular to the universal’.

Overwhelming response of the western academitia to Aristotle’s notions made it the dominant hegemony over the then-prevailing counterthesis of ‘Stoic logic’ propagated by Chrysippus.

So, the notion of knowledge perceived as being for advancement of living and discarding the universal ‘knowledge-for-knowledge’s-sake’ perception was in vogue from pretty ancient times --- ‘…….begin with a discussion of eudaimonia (=happiness, flourishing), and turn to an examination of the nature of aretê (=virtue, excellence) and the character traits that human beings need in order to live life at its best’.

Seventeenth century:

‘Meditations….’: Descartes

It was in a short work named ‘Meditationes de Prima Philosophia (Meditations on First Philosophy)’, published in 1641, Rene Descartes put forward his notions of material rationalism. The single most important proposition suggested by Descarts was the omnipotence of ‘Methods’ [Discours de la Methode (Discourse on the Method), published in 1637]. ‘Discours de la…’ describes the Importance of ‘Methods’ in proper understanding of nature. Doubtlessly, these feats very rightly have heralded him the ‘first modern philosopher’. But around the 30s of the seveteenth century he stepped back from publishing the voluminous work named ‘Le Monde (The World)’, coming to know about the Church’s condemnation of Galileo’s work. Descartes also had put forward the same heliocentric Copernican model as did Galileo, and he smartly backed off……….the same old ‘results of necessity’!! Instead he devoted in ‘designing a variety of structures and machines aimed at protecting and assisting soldiers in battle’, and also did some comparatively ‘benign’ exploratory works for instance the mathematical formulations of harmony (‘Compendium Musicae’)!!

But afterwards, Descartes did express his true feeling about knowledge in his much acclaimed work called the ‘Meditationes….’. It had developed several skeptica questions regarding the ‘possibiities of knowledge’. But still the the stigma of backing off in the face of Church’s resistance could not be warded off by Rene Descartes.

Twentieth century:

Popper: ‘Critical rationalism’

Karl Popper, undoubtedly one of the greatest philosophers of science in the twentieth century, had been a devoted opponent of all kinds of scepticism, conventionalism, and relativism in science and in human affairs and the fiercest critic of all forms of totalitarianism. But he, too, had been criticising the method of ‘Induction’ as a mean of scientific thinking and of knowledge base development in general. He rather supported the deductive testing as the only logical technique that is integrated with scientific methods…… remember Descartes! According to Popper, ‘simply because there are no ‘pure’ facts available; all observation-statements are theory-laden, and are as much a function of purely subjective factors (interests, expectations, wishes, etc.) as they are a function of what is objectively real’. Thus for Popper also the utilitarian problem-based apprach was more appeasing than the ‘facts-for-facts’-sake’ system. But may be because of his disillusioning experience with Marxism and the anti-Fascist ambience he was in, he rather avoided depicting the populace-welfare doctrines.

Russell, and Us

As we see above the ever-increasing power of the utilitarian conception of knowledge through the writings of the masters of the craft at different ages, now it is the time to question ourselves for the vacillating attitude towards accepting it as the universal truth in the world of the Learning and the Learned.

“Forgive us Mr. Aristotle and Dr. Popper”, it is really proving to be more and more difficult for us to formulate the knowledge as the paean of utility. The reason being as simple as that we have witnessed two world wars, two masquerading and uncounted ‘harmless’ nuclear explosions, the military investments in scientific research, infiltrating supervision of the international financial organizations on the educational institutions, countless ‘terrorist’ organizations all over the planet and fifteen years of Ig-Nobel prizes!! We are not in a position to discredit the applications of the contemporary knowledge base in improving the living conditions of the human race, but what we have lost is also undeniable. We have lost innocence; we have lost sympathy for the incapable; we have forgotten ourselves. As more and more technological progress makes us face the truth of being negligible specks of chemistry showing some bits of properties named as ‘life’ in the context of the Universe, more are we trying to think of ourselves to be the omnipotent forms of physical beings. We have started to think of art and history also as mere steps for attainment of the ultimate podium of power. We have moved from blind mindness to mind blindness.

Now here comes Bertrand Russell to rescue us from this abysmal cognitive bias and to resurrect the true essence of learning for sake of learning and nothing else. In the essay ‘Useless Knowledge’ in the 1935 anthology ‘In Praise of Idleness’ Russell countermands all the need-fulfilling objectives of knowledge and he does this by putting forward the instance of Renaissance, ‘Learning, in the renaissance, was part of the joie de vivre, just as much as drinking or love-making’. “What do you think about it Reverend Descartes?” Surely enough, those days are gone, and gone are the days of learned innocence. Renaissance ‘involved a revolt against the utilitarian conception of knowledge’. And again another ‘renaissance’ is awaited now.

To explain the dominance of ‘applicable’-knowledge, Russell opines, ‘there is more economic and political interdependence that there was in former times, and therefore there is more social pressure to compel a man to live in a way that his neighbors think useful’. But according to him ‘the narrowly utilitarian conception of education ignores the necessity of training a man’s purposes as well as his skills’. And this purpose-less or solely-purpose-driven skills are responsible for the present state of the rusted academitia all over the world. Dearth of purpose is bound to make one discontent with one’s accomplishments and comes in the way of reinventing oneself, which should be the sole purpose of living a life. In Russell’s words, ‘…..action is best when it emerges from a profound apprehension of the universe and human destiny, not from some wildly passionate impulse of romantic but disproportioned self-assertion’. And today the whole human race is driven just by this very emotion of self-assertion, as we can see in all discernible spheres of life.

Now it is left to us to decide over the rationale. Whether or not we should condemn the all-invading critical rationalism in the way towards the discovery of the self, this is the decision of utmost importance in the present epoch of ‘usefulness’.