The Enlightenment and the Power of Rational Argument

Conjecture Magazine (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

How poor are they that have not patience! What wound did ever heal but by degrees? Thou knowest we work by wit and not by witchcraft, And wit depends on dilatory time. —Othello II: iii. Have you abandoned your engagement with the project of enlightenment, liberty, and progress because you have grown cynical about the effectiveness of sound argument? When someone tells you you’re wasting your time arguing with them because argument is an illusion, do you have an answer? Today, it’s popular to depict people as irrational puppets of charismatic leaders, drawn unwittingly along by the emotional tides of crowds, mesmerised by the visual propaganda of flag-waving parades and historical statues glistening in the light of ideological firework displays. Witness the otherwise excellent periscopes of Scott Adams. We are told that we are living in a Post-Truth society. Logic and truth are irrelevant. Facts and logic don’t persuade, and “master persuaders” such as Donald Trump avoid them. Adams writes: “A good general rule is that people are more influenced by visual persuasion, emotion, repetition, and simplicity than they are by details and facts…If you’re using super-strong persuasion, you can be wrong on the facts, and even the logic of your argument, and still win.” Scott Adams is in the same tradition of thought as Danielle Kahneman, author of Thinking, Fast and Slow [2011], and winner of the Nobel prize in bias-research. This tradition emphasises the irrational and assumes that biases expose the irrational in humans. Kahneman carefully refrains from saying that humans are robots or 90% irrational, as Adams is inclined to say, but his emphasis still lies on the irrationality of humans. This now fashionable line of thought — though full of fascinating research — can be deeply misleading and demoralising for those committed to sound argument. Fortunately, there is no cause for despondency.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,945

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Limitations of the Open Mind.Jeremy Fantl - 2018 - Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Veridicalism and Scepticism.Yuval Avnur - 2024 - Philosophical Quarterly 74 (2):393-407.
Can we be justified in believing that humans are irrational?Edward Stein - 1997 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (3):545-565.
Rationality and Future Discounting.Arif Ahmed - 2018 - Topoi 39 (2):245-256.
Reason, humanity, and the moral law.G. A. Cohen - 1996 - In Christine Marion Korsgaard, The sources of normativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 167–188.
Irrational Love: Taking Romeo and Juliet Seriously.Natasha McKeever & Joe Saunders - 2022 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 30 (3):254-275.
Perspectivism and the Argument from Guidance.Jonathan Way & Daniel Whiting - 2017 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 20 (2):361-374.
Aesthetic Autonomy and Self-Aggrandisement.Jon Robson - 2014 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 75:3-28.
What Is It to Be Happy That P?Jeremy Fantl - 2015 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 2.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-06-28

Downloads
67 (#337,498)

6 months
9 (#425,688)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ray Scott Percival
London School of Economics (PhD)

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references