Chief Seattle

Is Rationality Rational Anymore?

RATIONALITY as the lever of Western Civilization WESTERN CIVILIZATION as the womb of capitalism CAPITALISM as the motor of alienation to mother nature

Tomorrow is First of May, 2012. The world is preparing a global opposition demonstration against capitalist power. The 'Occupy' rational is leading as much as unions. The message is clear: This world of money power is unfair. We want our rights. The Arab Spring was an irrational appraisal, not against the capitalist power but political power. Despite its irrationality, Arab Spring inspired Occupy movement, as well as the Spanish 'Los Indignados' of the European way. This fact accelerates the process of alternative political globalization which can only grow healthy on a solid ground with a healthy body. The healthy body is nurtured by the standpoint of human rights and multicultural, positive, open communication of the modern proletariat via the critic of common enemy: The Leviathan. The solid ground is the global capitalist political economy. This article investigates the roots of modern Leviathan as described in F. Perlman's book: Against History, Against Leviathan. A citation from Arianna Huffington's article is properly summarizing my point: The third thing that struck me about the protests -- both in Spain and here (OWS) -- is that they are about more than political and economic goals. They are bigger than that. They are about changing civil society -- about creating a new relationship not just between the people and their government, but among the people themselves. There's the growing sense that the problems we're facing can't be solved just by fixing our political institutions. We need to transform our relationships to our communities. ...and finishing the article she cites Bernard Shaw: All progress depends on the unreasonable man. I believe this last expression is to be perceived in the dialectical relationship between the rational and the irrational.

Abstract: -Rationality: Definition -Origins of rationality imagined -Functional and nonfunctional areas of rationality -The effect of Enlightenment on the concept of rationality - Capitalism and rationality -The global paradox in relation to rationality -Vicious cycle -Call of Mother Earth -1What is rationality? How and when did the concept emerge? How does it function now? What is its' effect? What is its' scope? What is the strategic position of 'rationality' in the reorganization of life today? Why?

Meaning analysis:
(Merriam Webster) The quality or state of being agreeable to reason , reasonability, causality. First known use of 'Rationality': 1628 (Wikipedia) In philosophy, rationality is the exercise of reason.[citation needed] It is the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately. It refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or with one's actions with one's reasons for action. However, the term "rationality" tends to be used differently in different disciplines, including specialized discussions of economics,sociology, psychology and political science. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem. Determining optimality for rational behavior requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and the making of several key assumptions. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Illustrating the relativity of rationality: if one accepts a model in which benefiting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated.

(If the violet marked words are considered, the evolution of rationality concept to accommodate 'modern' needs will be more clear.)
(Ayn Rand) The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action. ... It means a commitment to the principle that all of one's convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought.

Ayn Rand's description is the climax of new rationality concept which is totally in line with a world of global capitalist political economy. I would like to add another attribute to the meaning of 'rationality': Proportionality. Literally this is already intrinsic in the construction of the word. Proportion ratio rational (numbers)...It is also a basic attribute, in the sense that 'a judgment can be considered rational, only if it is proportional to its' premises of reasoning, which is knowledge in connection with the facts.' The tricky concept here is the 'fact'. Sun is a 'real fact', while money is an 'artificial fact'. Therefore rationality is not a virtue by itself, just like the example in Wikipedia demonstrates. -2The dominant and simplest meaning of 'rationality' today is that of Merriam Webster's; being agreeable to reason, which is not in conflict with the other two definitions provided that it's a specific type of reason. Rationality is logical reasoning, where logic stands for the mechanism which creates propositions from a linear cause effect relationship. (This also determines that there are other forms of reasoning.) Logic, as the motor of rationality goes back to Aristotle in its' basic, purest form where social,

political, scientific facts supported his logic. In earlier times knowledge of natural facts supported a similar type of logic. We can also say that logic, as a way of thinking, was created by the consistent relations of the facts. For example, 'If the sun sets, the sky becomes dark.' If this is tested to be true, as it is, we consider that this is knowledge. If we continue with the same example, we can say that 'We can not see at dark. Therefore we should not climb the mountain at dark.' Now we are becoming rational. What we are really doing is, we are inferring results to serve our benefits, in accordance and proportional to our knowledge which are based on natural facts. Therefore rationality creates results to protect ourselves, to obtain benefits, simplify our lives. What disturbs rationality is the unknown, and synonymously, loosely defined situations like 'morals', feelings etc. There the tool rationality, can not function properly. We can say that 'envy' is irrational, but 'envy' does not disappear; fear is irrational, but fear does not disappear. If knowledge is not clear, there is no case rationality can function. -3Until the Era of Enlightenment, rationality had a rather peaceful life, not as a concept in use, for it was not publicly conceptualized yet, but as a tool. The Era of Enlightenment was a vast explosion of speculation. Speculative philosophy destroyed, and then rebuilt our conceptual universe., defined the relationship between concepts, introduced new concepts, and created new, and multiple horizons to give a powerful push to reorganization of life. Rationality was rediscovered, and redefined in the Era of Enlightenment, and the tie to natural facts was broken permanently. The crippling Western Civilization (crippling because it's driving Mother Earth to an unnatural end...), which is globally dominant therefore ultimately important, recovered from a long lasting sleep, and rediscovered the power of intellectuality for the first time since Ancient Greece. Although references to Classic Greek philosophy implied organic ties, this was a delusion which served the purpose of basing the spirit of the age on a solid ground. It was a delusion because democracy was already a forgotten virtue. The idea of progress in contrast to periodicity, and as a father of modernity was born. At the end of scientific, philosophical, political, and social revolutions the concept 'rationality' was transformed first into a political one, then to an economic political one. This phenomenon shifted the use of rationality where it would not be possible to function in harmony with nature in its broadest sense. Rationality is not a concept that can function in vague areas unless, for example, 'success' is to be considered as benefit! Success is such an artificial category that arbitrary definitions without any reference to nature will suffice. -4How does rationality function in vague areas? What are the consequences? Where are the conflicts? What are the vague areas? Let's work on a typical example in the area of daily economics. I estimate that the house prices will rise quicker than any commodity, based on statistical trends. I want to invest my money to maximize my profit. I buy a house. I also get the profit I estimated. My behavior is considered a rational one. Another one: I am a ruling political leader. I can not find solutions to economic problems. I need to transfer wealth as fuel to the motor of the economy. I need power. I need new weapons. I force scientists

for invention of a new weapon to threat wealthy nations. They invent the atomic bomb. Let's look at the examples now. First example shows me that 'making more money without working' is possible, and even considered 'normal'. This assumption categorizes the 'action' in the amoral area which enables rationality to function. If making more money with the power of money was considered an immoral act, what result would any type of rationality produce? Would it really be functional? The second example also assumes that the whole society accepts the rules of the 'game' but still there is something more; keep the action secret, create an hygienic area and if necessary suppress the opponents, by a most convenient method. Thus rationality can function. What kind of a rationality is this? It is different from the sunset rationality. (In the most abstract sense, it is similar in fact; say represented in 'symbolic logic'.) It is easily understood that the results of this rationality can be immoral, it can be against life. What is the difference of this rationality from the ancient rationality? Proportion? Rationality, lost its basic attribute. Proportionality, proportionality to knowledge connected to natural facts is kicked off. The dynamic is freed arbitrarily and unlimitedly. -5Does this bring us to the latest global paradox? In order to live, we have to work. If we go on working, we will not be able to live.

or better stated as: If we stop, we will die. If we do not stop, the Mother Nature will die, so will we.

Thus the rationality of progress, modernity, technology, power policy brought us to a paradox. The question is: Whose paradox is this? What is the conceptual framework? It is very clear that the paradox belongs to the population 'inside the system'; system meaning 'capitalist (western) civilization' here. The drivers of the system are the real owners of the paradox. And the conceptual framework follows naturally; productive industrialist (capitalist) ideology. -6How can we step out of this vicious cycle?! If this is a fire within a limited area, and we do not want to dispense with our fuel, there are two possibilities: We either die or by running fast forward we may break through the fire. If the fire is not in a limited area, can we? The fire started very recently. It's a small fire yet. We have time. How much time do we have? How well do we perform about preventing the escalation of fire? Who started the fire, and how? Who can stop the fire? Is the fire brigade working for it, or is it only the ants trying to persuade the fire brigade which takes commands only from the arson department?

Can we really manage to prevent the escalation of fire by utilizing renewable energy resources? No, but even if it was possible, global warming is not the only way which may bring life on earth to an end. Since we seem to be reluctant in abandoning our rationality (in its' modified form), how will we guarantee that competition, power usage, consumption, hierarchy, state etc. will finish? If they do not finish capitalism will not stop. If capitalism does not stop how can we prevent the extreme exploitation of the resources ? And if it is said that they need not finish because the resources will be abundant, and an organized society in the cities will live happily forever, I have words to say: -7First of all the paradox is that of industrialism, and mainly capitalism. Rationality is not able to create results which will destroy its own conceptual framework. Rationality in opposition to freedom is just a tool, but a critical tool of the system. The system will not allow you to step out. The comfort presented by the system is an illusion of happiness. We evolved to cyborgs, and created the big brother system already. We replaced happiness with security, freedom with capability, brotherhood with individualism, solidarity with private property, justice with violence, truth with manipulation; all the real virtues are replaced by vices which are presented as virtues. The illusion of happiness is built under electric light. We forgot that we are part of mother nature. What we are experiencing is 'Stockholm Syndrome' in this respect. When we are 'afraid of being free' what else can we do? When we are free we can not live in this world, which is being more and more concentrated in the cities, rather techno-cities now. We want to be engaged. We want to live in closed areas. The resources on the other hand may be used more economically to postpone the end. It may even seem like a solution but; our life style and death style will not change if we can not manage to make a radical change. This radical change in our life style is needed per the laws of evolution. We have to regain our ability to change, adapt, evolve. We are not unhappy because of the global warming. We are unhappy, just like the mother earth herself, because of the reason which creates global warming. Mother Earth is warning. This is not an alarm bell for herself, not for our future either. This is an alarm bell for our present. People in the big cities, we are not able to feel 'the joy of life'. In analogy to Marx's expectancy, the big brother created its destroyer. Millions of modern proletariat, the consumers and the consumed in solidarity with the working class, who can communicate anonymously. Therefore we should discuss and free ourselves from the ideological manipulations. We should leave our comfort zones which are not comfortable at all. This may be the meaning of tomorrow. -8Think about your fear of a water world. Think about your debts. Think about your ties. Think about your psychological problems. Think about media manipulation. Think about the dirty politics. Think about the education system. Think about the injustice. Think about the wars. Think about your slavery to work, to technology. The prison. Think about your diseases. Think about your boredom. Think about the steady noise.

Think about how much you trust your neighbor. Think about the Amazon forests diminishing every day, with her inhabitants. Think about the torture made to innocent animals in the name of science, not citing the mass torture for fur, meat, fun! Think about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Fukushima. Think about , think twice about what Chief Seattle said 150 years ago! Imagine a beautiful world we will save from torture which we can share with all the animals, plants, trees, mountains, seas; in peace, love, respect, appreciation, discovery, endurance, patience, solidarity, justice, necessity, struggle, integrity of body and soul, generosity... and freedom. Mother nature calls us. We survived for millions of years when we had nothing but ourselves. Build 'communities'! Abandon 'cities'! Leave your properties! Find your piece of nature to love, care for and to live, feeling the joy of life!

19-30 April,2012 Omer Haluk Yilmaz Yoncakoy