|
|
|
Featured Papers from Rad Essays |
|
|
|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Crime and Punishment illustrates an important idea. The idea is that "reason," that grand and uniquely human power, is limited in reach and scope. Social critic Friedrich August von Hayek commented once that, ". it may be that the most difficult task for human reason is to comprehend its own limitations. It is essential for the growth of reason that as individuals we should bow to forces and obey principles we cannot hopefully to understand, yet on which the advance and even the preservation of civilization may depend." Such limitations imply that on life's most important questions - particularly those of a moral or ethical nature -- reason alone can produce chilling consequences. Without adequate or any moral illumination, reason alone, when pushed to its limits, can produce consequences which stand dramatically opposed to those moral demands. Dostoevsky's narrative is directed as a specific critique of Russian manifestations of purely rational political theories current in the 1860's in his homeland. But the challenge he poses has meaning for us at the end of the 20th century. Dostoevsky's parable focuses on a particular brand of 19th century Russian ideology, as it begins to crystallize in the mind of a young idealist. But the modeling procedure Dostoevsky uses in teasing out the contradictions of Raskolnikov's unguided application of a morally bankrupt theory, could equally well be applied to contemporary thinking around several important and equally bankrupt modern ideas - ideas harshly criticized by thinkers such as Hayek. Without direction - the source of which is ultimately beyond rational understanding - in the domain of the meta-rational -- reason-as-reason will, sooner or later, run aground. Directed reason on the other hand provides an orientation - an orientation that gives purpose and direction to inquiry -- by allowing us to select from an infinite range of possibilities the right path - the "right" reason. Problems emerged for Raskolnikov then, and for us now when we deny the need to recognize, acknowledge and bow to external guidance. The rational and the meta-rational must operate symbiotically: one pointing the way, the other uncovering the Truth. Raskolnikov rationalized murder. We are appalled. Why? Each of us will attempt to answer in a different way. Fundamentally though I think that most of our answers boil down to the same idea. We are appalled because it wasn't the right thing to do. We know that - Raskolnikov himself eventually came to know that too. But the reason his crime wasn't right had nothing to do with Raskolnikov's rational theories. Political theories, scientific theories, medical theories, anthropological theories, psychological theories, as theories are nothing more than intricate exercises in calculus. They apply a coherent set of rules to the objects they reference. Like arithmetic or calculus this involves plugging in values, applying the rules, and observing the consequences. Theories as calculus have no moral content. Whatever moral framework we as humans use to regulate the operation of theories comes from a domain outside of the calculus. This all seems so obvious. But is it? Our century seems a poor test case for the symbiotic and morally illuminated application of theory. Global wars, genocide, environmental decay, and massive economic disparity are but a few examples of theories running aground in our century. We seem no better that our ancestors. We may be worse off. Not just because the consequences of unguided applications of reason are more far reaching now - global population is large and our technologies powerful. We may be worse off now because of the emergence of theories that not only deny the importance of a symbiotic relationship between the rational and meta-rational, they deny the meta-rational altogether. These theories enable their practitioners - like Raskolnikov tries to do in our story - to cross over the barriers erected by traditional morality, by denying the barriers. They are not meta-rational to Raskolnikov; they are irrational. Hence they are destructible. In crossing those barriers Raskolnikov is in a position to act outside the constraints of good and evil. Such theories (i.e. those of Raskolnikov) - unlike most ideas we draw on to shape our lives and give meaning to our existence - actively close off and deny mystery. This is not true for physics or biology or political science generally. None of those systems make explicit moral demands as such - but nothing in those sciences as traditionally articulated expects their practitioners to be blind to the moral universe. I'd like to offer three contemporary examples. While each of these streams offers differing approaches, they are similar in this respect to the specific form of pure rationality Dostoevsky warns about: none of these systems are open to, make reference to, or are guided in any meaningful way by reference to externals.
Approximate Word count = 3038
Approximate Pages = 12.2
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|