Does this kind of “extreme irrationalist” simply not exist at all, merely a target I’ve erected for myself? Not necessarily. Although no great philosopher has been so absurd, such tendencies are not uncommon among general theorists. Many people do indeed take irrationalism as a “refuge” in order to evade their intellectual laziness. Every utterly and extremely radical position is an impregnable fortress: those outside cannot break in, but those inside cannot fight their way out either.
For a completely irrationalist, how can one be persuaded? A completely irrationalist cannot be “persuaded,” because “persuasion” means “arguing reasonably,” “convincing by reason”; but if the other party is completely irrational, then no amount of reasoning will get through. The most effective method is: “drag them out and beat them!” Beat them until they submit!
What you use to persuade someone depends on what they believe. So with irrationalists, one can only use irrational means to persuade them. Some people ask: do irrational means mean poetry and art? No. Poetry is an original form of reason, and art is an original form of technique; they are still peculiar to “humans as animals,” and may be useful against some less extreme irrationalists, but for those who completely deny human uniqueness, they still won’t work. The truly animal means are violence: bite them to death.
Fortunately, extreme irrationalists are not numerous, and they cannot unite; so we may well gather a crowd and besiege them together, not fearing that we will be unable to beat them—do you submit or not? If not, then we beat you some more!
Perhaps irrationalists will object: how can one solve problems with violence? But as long as he holds fast to the most thoroughly irrationalist position, as long as he still refuses to acknowledge the nobility of human intelligence, then he will never be able to raise an objection—on what grounds does one object to violence? Besides resorting to violence to resist violence, what power does the person being beaten have to oppose violence? —Reason. We should say: do not solve problems with violence; let’s all talk it out properly, let’s reason things through… Once this is said, one can no longer remain in the fortress of complete irrationalism, but is forced to admit: we need reason, we need to argue logically; between people, consensus can be reached through communication and debate; humans ought not to solve problems only in the animal way…
Therefore, complete irrationalism cannot be persuaded, but it poses no threat to serious scholarship.
Of course, “irrationalism” or an “irrationalist current” in the serious sense ordinarily used is not yet so extreme; it is not trying to reject reason altogether, but rather to argue that certain things are more important than reason, and merely to oppose the absolutization of “reason.” But this label only makes sense when used broadly to designate a group of people who are not orthodox rationalists; when it comes to somewhat more specific issues, it is still more fitting to use more precise terms, such as fideism, voluntarism, existentialism, intuitionism, relativism, and so on. And the somewhat baffling label “irrationalism” should be used with caution.
January 20, 2008
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply