CAN A HUMAN BE RATIONAL?

1941 publication

I used to think of myself as a Rationalist; and a Rationalist, I suppose, is one who wishes people to be rational. But rationality is under a lot of hard attack these days, so it's hard to know what is meant when one talks about rationality, or in cases where the meaning is clear, the question arises as to whether a person can be rational. The question of the definition of rationality has two sides - theoretical and practical: "what is a rational opinion?" and "what is rational behavior? Pragmatism emphasizes the irrationality of opinion, while psychoanalysis emphasizes the irrationality of behavior. Both theories have led many people to believe that there is no such thing as an ideal of rationality to which opinion and behavior can generally conform. It seems to follow from this that if you and I stick to different points view, it is useless to appeal to the argument or decision of an impartial person; we have no choice but to bring the dispute to an end by means of rhetoric, advertising or war, in accordance with the degree of our financial or military force. I am convinced that such a view is very dangerous and fatal for civilization in the future. I will therefore try to show that the ideal of rationality remains untouched by the ideas which are regarded as fatal to that ideal, and that it retains all the importance it has had hitherto when considered as the guiding principle of thought and life.

Let's start with rationality in opinion: I define it simply as the habit of taking all relevant evidence into account when forming a particular opinion. Where certainty is unattainable, the rational man will give highest value the most probable opinion, while at the same time keeping others with sensible probability in mind as a hypothesis that future evidence may confirm as preferable. This, of course, assumes that in many cases facts and probabilities can be established by an objective method, such as a method that will lead any two attentive people to the same result. This is often questioned. Many say that the only function of the intellect is to contribute to the satisfaction of individual desires and needs. The Committee for the Publication of Textbooks "Plebs" in "Fundamentals of Psychology" writes: “The intellect is, first of all, an instrument of partiality. Its function is to ensure that those actions that are beneficial to the individual or the human race are to be carried out and those that are less beneficial are to be prohibited.” (Italics in the original.)

“Marxist faith is completely different from religious faith; the latter is based only on desire and tradition; the first is based on scientific analysis objective reality». This seems to contradict what they say about the intellect, unless they really mean that the intellect did not take part in their conversion to the Marxist faith. In any case, since they recognize that it is possible " scientific analysis objective reality,” they must admit that it is possible to have opinions that are rational in an objective sense.

More erudite authors, those who defend an irrationalist point of view, such as pragmatist philosophers, are not so easily refuted. They argue that there is no such thing as an objective fact that our opinions must conform to if they are to be held to be true. For them, opinions are only tools in the struggle for existence, and those that help a person to survive will be called "true". This view prevailed in Japan in the 6th century. n. when Buddhism first reached this country. The government, doubting the truth of the new religion, ordered one of the courtiers to accept it experimentally; if he succeeds more than the rest, the religion will be accepted as universal. This method (modified for our time) is advocated by pragmatists in relation to all religious disputes; but I have yet to hear anyone say that he has converted to the Jewish faith, although it seems to lead to prosperity faster than any other.

Despite this definition of "truth," Everyday life pragmatism is always guided by quite different principles for the less subtle questions that arise in practical affairs. A pragmatist juror in the case of a murder will think about what happened in the same way as any other person; whereas, if he had adhered to his principles, he would have had to decide whom it would be more advantageous to hang. This person, by definition, will be guilty of murder, since the belief in his guilt will be more useful, and therefore more "true" than the belief in the guilt of any other person. Such practical pragmatism is sometimes encountered, I fear; I've heard of "frauds" in America and Russia that match this description. But in such cases, everything is done to hide this fact, and if these efforts fail, then a scandal occurs. This cover-up shows that even the police believe in objective truth in a forensic investigation. It is this kind of objective truth—very mundane and prosaic—that scientists seek to find. It is this kind of truth that people also seek to find in religion as long as they hope to find it. Only when people give up hope of proving that religion is the truth in literally, they go to work to prove that this is "truth" in some newfangled sense. It can be openly stated that irrationalism, i.e., disbelief in objective facts, almost always grows out of a desire to prove something for which there is no supporting evidence, or to deny something that is well confirmed. But the belief in objective facts always remains with regard to particular practical matters, such as investments or the hiring of servants. And if indeed it were possible to test the truth of our beliefs everywhere, it would be a test in all areas, leading to agnosticism wherever it was carried out.

The above considerations are, of course, quite inadequate in relation to the topic. The solution to the problem of the objectivity of fact is hampered by the vague reasoning of philosophers, which I will try to analyze further in a more radical way. Now I must assume that there are facts, that some facts are knowable, and about some other facts a degree of probability can be established in relation to facts that can be known. However, our beliefs often contradict fact; even when we only believe that something is probable based on the relevant evidence, it may be that we should consider it improbable on the basis of the same evidence. Therefore, the theoretical part of rationality consists in substantiating our beliefs on relevant evidence rather than on desires, prejudices, traditions. Thus, either an impartial person or a scientist will be rational.

Some think that psychoanalysis has shown the impossibility of rational belief by revealing the strange and almost insane origin of many people's fondly cherished beliefs. I have great respect for psychoanalysis, and I believe that it can be extremely useful. But public opinion lost sight of the purpose that was the main inspiration for Freud and his followers. Their method is originally therapeutic, it is a way to treat hysteria and various kinds insanity. During the war, psychoanalysis proved to be one of the most important ways treatment of neuroses received in the war. Rivers's book, Instinct and the Unconscious, which is largely based on the experience of treating shell-shocked patients, gives brilliant analysis painful manifestations of fear, when this fear cannot be directly indulged. These manifestations are, of course, mostly non-intellectual; They include different kinds paralysis, all types of apparently physical illnesses. But in this article we will not discuss this; Let's focus on intellectual deviations. It has been established that many hallucinations of lunatics are the result of instinctive obstructions and can be cured by purely psychic means, for example by bringing to the patient's consciousness facts which have been repressed in his memory. This kind of treatment, and the outlook which inspires it, presupposes an ideal of sanity from which the patient has deviated and to which he must be brought back by the realization of all relevant facts, including those which he most wishes to forget. This is in direct opposition to those lazy concessions to irrationality which are sometimes incited by those who know only that psychoanalysis has shown the predominance of irrational belief, and who forget or ignore that its aim is to weaken this predominance. certain method medical treatment. A very similar method can cure the irrationality of those who are not considered mad, provided they are treated by a specialist who is free from their delusions. Presidents, Cabinet Ministers and Eminent Persons, however, rarely fulfill this condition and therefore remain uncured.

So far, we have considered only the theoretical side of rationality. The practical side, to which we now turn, is more complex. Differences of opinion on practical matters stem from two sources: first, the differences between the desires of the disputants; secondly, differences in their assessments of the means of realizing their desires. The second-class differences are actually theoretical and only indirectly practical. For example, some authoritative people argue that the first line of our defense should be completed from battleships, others - from airplanes. There is no difference here as to the proposed purpose, namely national security, the difference is only in the means. The reasoning, therefore, can be constructed in a purely scientific way, since the disagreement that gives rise to the dispute concerns only facts present or future, certain or probable. In all these cases the type of rationality which I have called theoretical applies, although the practical question is at stake.

However, in such cases there are complications that are very important for practice. A person who wants to act in a certain way will convince himself that by acting in this way he achieves some goal that he considers good, even if if he did not have such a desire, he would see no reason for such a belief. . And he will judge facts and possibilities in a slightly different way than a person with opposite desires. Gamblers are known to have an irrational belief in systems that will eventually must lead them to win. People interested in politics convince themselves that the leaders of their party will never be guilty of fraudulent tricks practiced by other politicians. The man who loves to govern thinks it is good for the population to be treated like a flock of sheep; a man who likes tobacco says that it calms the nerves; Human, loving alcohol, says it stimulates wit. Addictions caused by such causes falsify human judgments about reality in a way that is very difficult to avoid. Even Research Article on the effect of alcohol on the nervous system will generally give the author, on the basis of internal logic, whether he is a teetotaller; in any case he will tend to see the facts in a light that justifies his own practice. In politics and religion, such considerations become very important.

Most people think that in forming their political opinions they are guided by the desire for the public good; but nine times out of ten Political Views a person can be predicted based on his lifestyle. This leads some people to a conviction, and many to a conviction that is expressed in practical actions that in such cases it is impossible to be objective and that only a "tug of war" between classes with opposing interests is possible.

However, it is in such cases that psychoanalysis is partly useful, since it makes people aware of interests that have hitherto been unconscious. It provides methods for self-observation, i.e., the ability to see ourselves from the outside, and the basis for the assumption that this view of ourselves from the outside is less unfair than we are inclined to think. Combined with training scientific outlook this method can, if widely taught, enable people to become infinitely more rational than they are at present with regard to their beliefs about reality and about possible consequences any proposed action. And if people are united in their views on these issues, the differences that remain can almost certainly be resolved amicably.

There remains, however, a question that cannot be solved purely intellectual methods. The desires of one person cannot be completely harmonized with the desires of another. Two competitors in the stock exchange may be in complete agreement about the consequences of an action, but this will not bring about harmony in practical activities because each wants to get rich at the expense of the other. Nevertheless, even here rationality can prevent most harmful effects that would otherwise materialize. We call a man irrational when he acts out of passion, when he cuts off his nose to disfigure his face. He is irrational because he forgets that by indulging the desire that he happened to experience most strongly at this moment, he will interfere with the fulfillment of other desires that will later be more important to him. If people were rational, they would maintain a more correct view of their own interest than they do now; and if all people proceeded from conscious self-interest, the world would be a paradise compared to what it is now, I do not say that there is nothing better than self-interest as a motive for action; but I maintain that self-interest, like altruism, is better when it is realized than when it is not. In a well-ordered society, a person is very rarely interested in doing anything too harmful to others. The less rational a person is, the more often he does not understand how much what offends others offends him too, because hatred and envy blind him. Therefore, although I am not saying that conscious self-interest is the highest morality, I am saying that if it becomes universal, it makes the world immeasurably better than it is.

Rationality in practice can be defined as the habit of remembering and considering all our respective desires, and not just what happens to be most powerful in this moment. As with rationality in opinions, this is a matter of degree. Undoubtedly, complete rationality is an unattainable ideal, but as we continue to classify some people as crazy, it is clear that we think of some people as more rational than others. I believe that all lasting progress in the world consists in an increase in rationality, both practical and theoretical. To preach an altruistic morality seems to me to be something useless, because it will appeal only to those who already have altruistic desires. But preaching rationality is something else, because rationality helps us to become aware of our own desires in general, whatever they may be. A man is rational in the proportion in which his intellect shapes and controls his desires. I believe that the control of our actions by the intellect is, in the final analysis, the most important thing that makes it possible. public life as science increases the number of means at our disposal to harm each other. Education, the press, politics, religion - in a word, all the great forces of the world - today are on the side of irrationality; they are in the hands of men who flatter His Majesty the People To confuse them. The remedy lies not in any heroic deed, but in the efforts of individuals towards a more sane and balanced view of our relations with our neighbors and the world. It is to an ever more widespread intelligence that we must turn to solve all the problems that our world suffers from.

Perhaps you have a well-developed intuition; it manifests itself in the fact that at a certain moment there is a feeling what decision needs to be made. Or perhaps you have more rational abilities. And before you do something, you carefully weigh everything. There are specific signs of each type, and you will be able to find out what is typical for you.

It cannot be said that a face has exclusively features of one type. This means that each person at certain moments relies on intuition, and, in the same way, each of us, before making a decision, thinks about his problems and affairs.

But there is no denying the fact that some people are more impulsive than others. They rely more on intuition and premonitions, while others are more cautious, thinking everything over before taking a step.

These ways of behaving and making decisions are often associated with a personality type. But it will be interesting to know that relying on intuition, for example, is by no means an irrational characteristic. Experts assure that in fact, we make many decisions based on intuition and sensations. But that doesn't mean it happens spontaneously. Below we will explain why.

intuitive thinking

Guesses, premonitions… We all know how it happens. There is a sudden feeling that tells us which path is best to take. For example, something tells you that you should not expect anything good from a certain person and it is better to avoid communicating with her.

We often don't think of such premonitions as smart because they come from own emotions and feelings, and is not a product of the work of the brain, which would make them logical and reasonable. But this is not true. Premonitions are actually very quick value judgments that rely on our personality traits and previous experiences.

Everything that happens in our life, we remember and store in memory along with the feelings that accompanied these events. As a result, when we are faced with a certain stimulus, there is a sudden feeling that says: “Do this, go this way, choose a person, it’s worth the risk, or it’s better to give up.” We draw these conclusions based on events and decisions made in the past. . They are also related to a person's personality.

The complex mechanism of intuition is displayed in the sudden feelings that the mind generates, and we ourselves do not understand why. There are people who do not ignore them, but act according to them. They listen, as they say, to their instinct.

But at the same time, you should be careful. We must remember that relying on intuition is not always the best solution, since such sensations are very fast and it is difficult for us not to be mistaken. So, intuition does not always work. People who belong to a different type are more cautious and, despite their "premonitions", ignore them, and rely more on reason. This type of personality is much more rational.

rational thinking

Rational thinking relies on conscious information: what exists around, on things that can be seen and felt, on information that can be read or compared like.

People rational type make decisions more slowly and carefully. This does not mean that they have worse opportunities, but rather an indication of their thoughtfulness and, perhaps, insecurity. But sometimes this is good, because before making a decision, such individuals subject them to “quality control”. People of this type are also afraid of making mistakes and always carefully look for the right answer and the best solution.

Therefore, this personality type is cautious, but sometimes we do not have much time to make a decision. In addition, sometimes it is not possible to get all the information we need before deciding something.

For example, you can't know everything about a person to decide if she's worth falling in love with. This happens independently of the mind, which is why most people actually operate intuitively. Emotions always have more power than rational reasoning. Humans tend to be driven by emotions to a large extent.

In this matter, as in most others, the best thing is to keep the balance. Don't be in too much of a hurry when making a decision, but being too careful won't work either. the best way out. Uncertainty is often generated through some type of existential suffering. So, it's definitely better to keep a balance on both sides.

Do you agree with this? What do you think about your personality? What type do you classify yourself as: intuitive or rational?

The series of programs "Finding Meanings".
Issue #112.

Stepan Sulakshin: Good afternoon friends! Let me congratulate you on the May holidays, on the holiday Great Victory, and move on to our new work semester with you. Today, as planned, we bring up for discussion, for understanding the meaning of the term, category, the concept of "rational". This interesting example, because it allows you to see the classical multifunctionality of humanitarian terms, when there are semantic loads of the same word that are equivalent for different contexts. Vardan Ernestovich Baghdasaryan starts.

Vardan Baghdasaryan: Exist various forms knowledge and thinking. There is rational thinking, when a person draws some knowledge from his everyday experience. There is artistic, imaginative, largely intuitive thinking, there is religious knowledge, and finally, there is rational thinking, and it is basically logical. Rational thinking builds, in particular, the phenomenon of scientific knowledge.

For those who are engaged developmental psychology and physiology, age evolution, it is well known when, at what stages, what component of human thinking needs to be developed. This is visually effective thinking, it arises in a person in early age, and then thinking is already visually figurative.

It is no coincidence that methodologists say that for certain age categories it is necessary to introduce illustrative material. It is effective in high school, he is well received for the presentation of the material, since it correlates well with developmental psychology. And finally abstract thinking, which needs to be emphasized in high school, in higher educational institutions, when thinking is already built on logic, when schemes, models are already offered for schoolchildren, students, and students, and this component is developing with emphasis.

In the same way, you can look at the history of mankind, because evolution is well written before the formation of man, anthropogenesis before the formation of civilization. But after all, with the formation of civilization, with the formation of states, evolution did not stop, it does not stop today.

But why did the West initially begin to prevail over other cultures in geopolitical, geo-economic rivalry? And here, trying to answer this question, we just come to the phenomenon of the rational. Rational logical thinking, with which the West came out, on the basis of which science and technology could develop, the correct management technologies were built, and gave the West a historical advantage.

The famous French philosopher and anthropologist Lucien Levy-Bruhl in his writings spoke of the so-called pre-logical thinking in relation to archaic communities. The thinking of modern man is basically logical. The left hemisphere of the human brain is responsible for logic, and Levy-Bruhl wrote that modern man left hemisphere more developed.

The people of archaic communities perceived the world differently. Here, to a greater extent, intuition played a role, a projection onto some mystical components, and so on. The perception of the world, reality differed significantly from the perception of the world by modern man. Then there is an evolutionary phase - the development of the left hemisphere consciousness, which is not sufficiently described in textbooks on anthropogenesis. And just the historical breakthrough of the West, what is called the period of modernity, was associated with the formation of rational thinking.

If we talk about the success of the Soviet Union, we can recall how much attention was paid to the scientific, logical component.

And when they try to say that Soviet Union won at the expense of something else, and that the logic of rational thinking did not play a significant role, this is fundamentally wrong, since it was the cult of science and scientificity that was very important in the era of the Soviet breakthrough.

Today's breakthrough, which is being undertaken by China and India, can be traced even in various school and student Olympiads - the Chinese and Indians win these Olympiads. But we traditionally perceive China, and India, and the East as a whole in some kind of intuitive and mystical way, and the significance of the rational factor for them today is unprincipled.

So, we have determined that the historical success of the West, the genesis of the rise of Western civilization is associated with the factor of rationality.

But now the period of attack on the rational begins, an attempt to disavow the very fact of the rational from various positions. The phenomenon of cognitive weapons is not only a phenomenon modern world, it was formed earlier, and the first opposition - the rational is opposed to the spiritual. A rational person is allegedly a person who thinks in terms of economic pragmatism in the spirit of Adam Smith, while a spiritual person is something else. Hence this fundamental substitution, which was presented.

It is clear that the rational does not contradict the spiritual. We can remember many thinkers, religious theologians, who built rational systems. As a result, a substitution was formed: on the one hand, a rationalist, a bourgeois, on the other, a spiritually centric person, and the religious tradition, mysticism was, as it were, in such a dichotomy. The Slavophiles thought: “We do not need logic, a logocentric system in which the West develops. Let's live on the basis of feelings, mysticism, intuition, something else. Our strength is in faith, but not in logic.”

And this is the fundamental change. It seems to be, yes, an appeal to the Russian-centric factor, but at the same time a fundamentally erroneous path - the path of archaization, the rejection of that force and component that, indeed, could play an important role in both geo-economic and geopolitical confrontation.

The second trend that emerged in late XIX- the beginning of the twentieth century, associated primarily with the names of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, a challenge to rationality - the will, the will to live. Will is opposed as a kind of intuitive psychoenergetic principle, it is opposed to "ration". That is, if you discard the "ration", you can go to intuition.

Nietzsche wrote: "One more generation of people who read, and the ability to create will end." Again, a false opposition of will and "ration". All this relied on undermining a factor that played a fundamental role.

The next attempt to undermine is Freud and the trend associated with him. Let's analyze. There is a subconscious, and logic is unimportant, “ration” is unimportant. Everything is formed in the subconscious, and the conscious sphere is just a sublimation of some instincts. The logical, rational "reasonable man" dehumanizes and turns into a certain set of analyzed complexes.

Next comes the direction of postmodernity. It is difficult to interpret it differently than a certain project. One of the main figures of postmodern discourse is Foucault. Let me remind you that his key study is the “psychiatric hospital phenomenon”. The mental hospital client was initially perceived as something anomalous.

Today, in modern big discourse, what was considered abnormal ceases to be such, and here it is - the ongoing substitution. There is no logic, everyone has their own logic. The mental hospital becomes normative in the interpretation of postmodernity and Foucault. Why all this, where does it all lead?

To answer this question, I will refer to the experience of the school. In fact, what is today USE system? Thanks to this system, a person unlearns to think logically, rationally. It would seem that the volume of classes that falls on schoolchildren is very large, but at the same time, due to the fact that at school they do not teach cause-and-effect relationships, they do not teach thinking in a rational way, through a large amount of unrelated knowledge, this is rational, "ratio", is undermined. As a result, a school graduate, despite the large amount of workload that falls on him, turns out to be less capable of logical, abstract, rational thinking.

What is all this for, what is it connected with, is there any design in it? Indeed, the evolution of man was associated, among other things, with the development of his intellectual and rational abilities. And now a project is being fixed - a project of dehumanizing a person in order to deprive him of a reasonable beginning, to repress this reasonable beginning.

It is clear that if the rational is suppressed, and the intuitive, instinctive prevails, it will no longer be a person in the true sense of the word, it will be a herd, and this herd will be much easier to manage. That is why the question of the rational, of "ratio" goes, in fact, to the question of the evolution of mankind.

Vladimir Leksin: Vardan Ernestovich spoke in detail and in detail about evolution and various kinds of zigzags in the understanding of the word “rationality” and everything connected with it, but I will try to dwell on some definitional points, which is very important right now.

A few years ago, a very good Moscow publishing house published an amazing two-volume book called Rationality at the Crossroads. Now this topic - the topic of the crossroads - is developing very actively in many political, cultural, philosophical works both western and eastern. This topic is developing especially actively in China, and in our domestic works, this crossroads becomes, as it were, main theme discussion, moving away from what is reason, reason, rationality, and so on. But this is important enough.

Rationalism is a philosophical and ideological attitude to the fact that all the true foundations of being, our behavior, knowledge, ideas about the world are based only on reason. And here comes an amazing philosophical, political science and at the same time physiological definition of "reason", which arose from theological studies.

In The City of God, Augustine said very clearly that religion must be freed from everything that cannot be the subject of a rational explanation, and this will be rational. That is, this theological rationality, as a liberation from everything that excludes explanation from the point of view of reason, is a very serious moment.

In the same work, Augustine began to oppose reason to reason as the lowest level of knowledge. Reason is a kind of mental activity that is associated with the isolation and fixation of certain abstractions, that is, some initially conceptual provisions that only allow one to compose a complete true knowledge about the subject.

This tradition has come down to Kant. Kant said that one's own mind is the desire to master the subject of thinking through certain rules. That is, the mind operates in a system of habitual rules, ideas, and here any flight of thought, any deepest descents into the depths of the subject become impossible. And it is possible that what he called this the lowest level of reason, the lowest level of knowledge, is very important for us. I think that we now live more in the world of the mind than in the world of the mind.

Kant wrote that the mind rises above the sensual, above the emotions, above something random, and he tries to discover the truth, first of all, in the facts. He wrote two very famous books– “Kritik der Reinen Vernunft” and “Kritik der praktischen Vernunft”. The second book is devoted specifically to practical reason, and it is considered the most widely read of all Kant's books.

Kant's book on practical reason answers the most important question, our center asks the same question - what should I do? What should I do from the point of view of the main values ​​of the modern world, meaning a system of knowledge about what is good and what is bad. Here deontology is one of the main foundations of this case. With Kant, this goes through 2-3 pages in this famous book of his. It would seem that this is the simplest idea, but for us it is now very important.

It must be said that the ideas of the highest reasonableness of everything that happens are ideas mainly of the 17th-18th centuries. Almost all of them were built on the works of the famous philosophers Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, Leibniz, who were then considered almost the gurus of the intellectual world.

At the same time, the fundamental basis of classical rationalism was formed - the achievement of absolute unchanging truth, which has universal significance. This is the Leibniz formula. This is such a very short definition of the concept of "rationality", but it is very significant. I must say that a huge number of misconceptions are due to the fact that people were guided by this very principle, but this is another question and a separate topic for reasoning - where does the mind lead us, and even more - where does the mind lead us.

Let me return to what I started with, that the theme of rationality is now heard in most cultural, socio-philosophical, philosophical-anthropological, and political studies. There is a tendency to evaluate, for example, the development of a culture by the extent to which it has a sign of rationality with the addition or, conversely, the decrease of the rational. They begin to assess the degree of democratization of society by how reasonably people approach everything. By the way, one of the indicators of the so-called democratization scale is the level of civilization, efficiency social institutions, and here the criterion of this very rationality is important. Pay attention, I said how reasonable, and not rationally, people approach everything.

Here we need to remember both our recent history and what we all see now. This morning in EuroNews the topic of Ukraine was again heard, where it was said that the West is acting rationally in relation to all this, it is acting “wisely”, as it should. And indeed it is.

I recalled how in 1944 the commander-in-chief of all military and not only military operations in the Soviet Union, Stalin, appreciated the activities of Churchill, who said that until the last button was sewn to the uniform of an English soldier, he would not cross the English Channel . So, Stalin said: "Well, well, this is rational." This is such a dichotomy of what is smart and really rational, correct, and what actually follows from this, and this makes up a giant gap, both mental and logical - whatever.

I will give a short excerpt from this two-volume book, I really liked this idea. Absolutely amazing person, one of the most famous researchers of the historical-philosophical and philosophical-anthropological world thought, who is now no longer alive, said that now there are calls to return rationality, largely lost in technogenic civilization, to return rationality and the role of the most important cultural value, to turn again to reason as that highest human ability that allows us to understand semantic connection not only human actions and spiritual movements, but also the phenomena of nature, taken in their integrity, in unity, in their living connection with the political life of the state.

This is very important - to return the fullness of rationality, which has gone to the level of some technical methods. And absolutely biological ideas that everything that is beneficial to someone is reasonable, probably, this is a very good call. Thank you.

Stepan Sulakshin: Thanks, Vladimir Nikolaevich. Today we have a very interesting conversation. Of course, I must join in, support all those illustrations, genesis pictures that allow us to approach the semantic content of the term "rational" given by my colleagues.

It is very interesting to reflect again on how we ourselves, in what efforts, by what methods, in what information-content fields we are looking for these very meanings. Obviously, we turn to dictionaries - encyclopedic, specialized, philosophical, and so on. Obviously, we are sorting through the connotational pictures known from the literature associated with the use of this term with its sometimes complex life, gaining a collection of manifestations of the existence of this term in space human activity and human consciousness. We analyze our own experience. Different terms have their own corner of life, a piece of the space of being.

Most often, in our dictionary and the future dictionary, which we will definitely publish, we are looking for current political, socially relevant terms, but they always, and sometimes to a very large extent, penetrate, live and cling to the usual routine household sphere in the life of any person.

There are some border semantic zones where this term either looks in, then takes root there, or even lives on an equal footing. There are terms that go into purely specialized, professional fields of use, and there are terms that can live, as it were, the life of semantic polygamists.

Today's term belongs to the second type. Of course, to a large extent, the main burden is connected with the opposition or designation of specificity. human being as not only a biological being, with emotions, with feelings, with instinctive unconscious circuits of reaction of activity, but also with activity based on consciousness, on reason. And this is the first most important semantic load, the concept, this is connotation, linking, illustrating, some specific disclosure of the most important property of a person, his consciousness and his rationality.

Rational means pertaining to reason, based on reason, on logic as specific and unique way implementation of the process of reasonableness, reflexive, with feedback, attitude to the surrounding universe and obtaining information, processing, using it and implementing it in the active-activity load of a person.

Here the subtlety is that in biological nature, animals seem to also have a goal, like a person, the goal is to live, but in unreasonable nature an animal never sets this goal, does not correct it and does not activate its activity to achieve it. This feature is inherent only in a person who is rational, that is, expedient. But a person is not just in line with the goal, as an animal is in line with the goal of living, and all his instincts are designed for this, the person himself sets the goal.

Sometimes there is a very difficult challenge. I will continue the example that Vladimir Nikolayevich gave. While Churchill was sewing buttons to the uniforms of soldiers, delaying the entry of the second front into the Second World War, our people fought and made sacrifices.

And there were times when Supreme High Command set the task of liberating or capturing such and such a city by significant dates - for example, by the celebration of the anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, by some other dates, but what is the rationality in this? It would seem that military operations, appointments, orders should proceed from the criteria of minimizing losses, maximum effect, proper coordination along the front line, and so on.

Many historians, and even more publicists, blame Stalin for the military, even civilizational, I would say, manner of waging war, which was characteristic of the Soviet Union in terms of excessive losses. In Berlin, representatives of our embassy also told me that it is difficult to imagine the last 300 meters of the war - to the Reichstag, and why it was necessary to raise our infantry ranks to full height under dagger fire, where they died by the thousands, when it was possible to starve them out, bomb them and etc.

So, the question is: what is rational and what is not? Could the Soviet Union have won that war if it had acted according to Churchill's rules, and only according to these rules, if this rationality, the Prussian military calculation, had been used without the rise of the human spirit, completely irrational behavior, when they threw themselves at the embrasures with their own breasts?

Therefore, there is a semantic load that has not been fully thought out here, that the human mind and the human spirit belong to different spaces of the semantic load. Perhaps this irrationality from the point of view of simple, logical, primitive constructions is the human belonging and rationality of a higher spirally ascending type of intelligence.

I will say something paradoxically wonderful. Outside rationality, routine, simple, mathematically verified, rationality arises more high order based on sacrifice higher meanings than just the existence of one's own mortal body or that very "second-class" rationality, namely: rationality, prudence, prudence, frugality, and so on.

Therefore, look, there is a theoretical semantic load of this category - reasonable, logically verified, calculated, but at the same time there is an independently existing ontological platform for the existence of the term - it is expedient, diligent, economical. By the way, it intersects with a household platform.

But there is another amusing multiplication of semantic platforms - this is a mathematical platform. The fact is that rational is a number, just special type numbers. It is defined as a fraction - m/n, where m and n are integers.

That is, rational numbers in mathematics are called integers or fractional integer fractions, and irrational - numbers that are in the interval.

Why was this invented, for whom is it important at all, who uses it in their lives or in humanitarian applications? Nobody, anywhere and for no reason. But there is a rational number. This once again illustrates the significant need, very scrupulously and carefully for oneself, for dialogue, for scientific research, for scientific presentation, to load the term in your context with an exact meaning that helps you understand yourself, understand the universe, and so that your neighbor understands you.

Here was an illustration today, very, in my opinion, classical, methodologically and methodically interesting. Thanks for our conversation today. For the next exercise, we take out the word, which is now probably one of the most frequently used in socio-political discourse and vocabulary - "referendum". All the best.

Irrational behavior is inherent in many personalities. What is this character trait? Why do people allow themselves such behavior? only permission, personal permission to not pay attention to circumstances when making decisions, not to think about their consequences?

Basic concept

Irrational - from a philosophical point of view, in a special moralizing, denying human beginning, as opposed to the sound functioning of the mind in comprehending the world. It admits the existence of areas of worldview that are incomprehensible to the mind, but completely acceptable due to such qualities as intuition, feeling, faith. Therefore, it characterizes the special nature of reality. Its tendencies were studied to some extent by such philosophers as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Delta, Bergson.

Characteristics of the irrational

Irrational is a pattern of behavior inherent in free people who can afford not to think about the consequences. This mode of action is one which implies the impossibility of understanding reality in scientific ways. As the representatives of this doctrine explain, reality and its individual derivatives, such as life and psychological processes, are not amenable to generally accepted laws. Such a state can be subject only to the elite, for example, the geniuses of art or some kind of superman. According to this doctrine, irrational person- this is the individual who, violating all previously approved laws, is able to understand the basic laws of existence with the help of subjective thinking.

Impact of illogical behavior on scientific research

Irrational is not scientific or without a logical approach. Philosophical teachings in this area are divided into such areas as intuition, psychology, contemplation of something super-real, as well as the appearance of inexplicable, but subjective experiences in a person. All these facts served as the reason for a repeated and deeper consideration of this phenomenon. First of all, researchers human psychology, which at one time was deprived of close and thorough study.

Many early experiments were not accepted due to lack of evidence of a clear manifestation of irrational behavior among employees not only scientific centers but also among the representatives of rational thinking. But many serious theoretical problems that arose later forced scientists in the field of man to return to the study of illogical human activity.

Unfathomable actions

Irrational behavior is an action aimed at obtaining a result without premeditated actions and evaluation. This behavior has no preconceived options development of a situation, question or task. Usually it is associated with the spontaneous manifestation of feelings, emotions that irritate or, conversely, sharply calm thoughts that arise as a result of a spiritual impulse.

Usually such people are able to see reality beyond its logical explanation and with the advantage of some arguments over others. They are guided by actions without pre-prepared algorithms of actions, called "life instructions". Most often, such behavior is based on the belief of the person himself in good result of the work performed, with a complete practical lack of understanding of how the required result was achieved. Sometimes people have only one explanation - the favor of fate.

It can often be seen that irrational thinking saves a person from destructive criticism. own actions and deeds. It brings to the fore the idea that the individual has already encountered such a problem and once again solved it with the help of the acquired experience. Although the problem arose for the first time, and its solution was spontaneous and not realized. This is due to the fact that a person is looking for answers in his subconscious on a sensitive as well as intuitive level, and already in the process of solving the problem he copes with it.

Irrational thinking hinders or helps to live?

Growing up every day, a person thinks more and more stereotypically. irrational expression is the speech of a child. Only a kid can afford to think in such a way, relying on the knowledge laid down in him since childhood, and then reinforced all the time, and added new ones received later.

In reflections and conclusions, as in all other global laws of this world, the rule of conservation of energy applies. Thinking according to a stereotyped scheme is often beneficial: less effort and the necessary time are spent. And it’s good if the knowledge gained in childhood is correct, then the person solves the task the right way. But if the knowledge is irrational, then the person is less fortunate. The main factors why such thoughts hinder correct thinking are:

• they are spontaneous;
• lead a person away from his main activity;
• often work in unnecessary situations;
• cause anxiety and irritability.

The sooner a person gets rid of illogicality in his thinking and actions, the sooner negative events will cease to occur in his life, the psyche will be strengthened, and functional activity will improve. Irrational is wrong for a sane person.

Greetings, our dear colleagues and readers! Today we offer no less important topic about two various ways actions of a person and his two different reactions to changes in environment are rationality (J) and irrationality (P).

Rational person - evaluates the world a thought created by himself, his opinion changes - his assessment changes; behavior does not depend on the situation, but on a pre-planned plan.

An irrational person - behaves in such a way that everything depends on the situation. Conditions change - their assessment changes.

The actions of the rational ones are consistent and systematic, the irrational ones are flexible and impulsive.

An irrational person accepts and evaluates the situation, changes behavior flexibly, adapts to changing circumstances easily and impulsively. It is difficult to make decisions, put them off, believing that the situation will resolve itself and time will put everything in its place. He does not rush to conclusions: in order to come to something, it is necessary to ripen and feel an internal push - “it's time”. His credo is lability and flexibility. Calmly and easily makes mutual concessions.

Acts according to the situation, impromptu, and does not burden himself with plans. Inclined to search for alternatives and various approaches, chooses the best one. Copes with sudden and critical situations. Can keep several situations under control. At the moment, he chooses the most effective, optimal, and, if necessary, quickly rebuilds.

Doesn't prepare ahead of time. Can procrastinate with things, put them off until last minute. Relies on your inspiration, ability to improvise or on a lucky break. Trusts feelings. All actions depend on the mood. Distraction in the process of work and switching from one type of activity to another stimulates efficiency. Tells inconsistently, is distracted by associations.

The obligation to strictly adhere to the plan worries him. Emotions are impulsive and difficult to control. Feelings are the cause of actions. Therefore, he cannot act until some feeling has seized him. He eats when he wants, and what he wants at the moment, little by little, just to satisfy his hunger, 4-6 times a day.

The incentive for a fruitful life is everything that can bring new experiences and variety. extreme situations inspire. The lifestyle is flexible and unpredictable.

A rational person is conservative, the life style is characterized by regularity and regularity.

Subordinates everything to its own specific sequence, lays it out “on shelves”. Rational man goes one's own way, it is difficult to convince others. In each situation, he acts according to the scheme and plan. Prepares his plan in advance, thoughtfully and consistently works on it.

A new job starts only after the completion of the previous one, otherwise it unsettles. Adheres to principles, rules, norms. It stands on its own, does not give up its positions, strives to be the master of the situation. Follows formalities, observes order, punctuality, accuracy, accuracy.

A rational person adheres to a routine at work and at home, is nervous when distracted, therefore everything random, unexpected, irritates, and any unplanned change can cause a violent reaction. The unfamiliar is equivalent to the opposite.

If conditions and circumstances change and it is necessary to rebuild, it strains, putting a lot of effort. Therefore, it often happens that circumstances have already changed, and a person continues to think and act in accordance with a pre-established plan, which subsequently leads him to a dead end. This can be called a kind of "stuck".

He reacts to an emotion with an emotion, to an act - by an act, and immediately, without hesitation, on the basis of life experience. It seems more severe, resolute, emotions are sharp and cold. A feeling is not the cause of an act, but a consequence: after the right act, one feels better, after the wrong one it worsens.

Therefore, a rational person carefully considers his actions. Takes action when you need to create some kind of state or well-being. He rarely eats, maybe 2 times a day, but he eats a lot until he feels that he is pressing down his throat.