Les sophistes grecs soutenaient que, l'homme étant la mesure de toutes choses, il n'existait aucun point d'appui permettant de distinguer le bien du mal, le vrai du faux, le juste de l'injuste... Socrate s'est dressé contre eux et la philosophie grecque a pris son envol. Notre temps pourrait tirer le plus grand profit d'une réaction même plus modeste, car l'irrationnel a fait son grand retour, comme si le balancement entre le rationnel et l'irrationnel devait fatalement aller de l'un à l'autre, (...) sans jamais pouvoir s'arrêter sur la position rationnelle. Depuis un bon demi-siècle, le subjectivisme, le relativisme et le culturalisme partent sans répit à l'assaut de l'objectivité, de l'universalité et de la rationalité. Aujourd'hui comme hier, ce constat soulève trois questions conjointes. La première porte sur la propension humaine à l'irrationnel. La deuxième concerne sa production, ses animateurs, ses thèmes, ses campagnes, ses manoeuvres. La dernière s'occupe de sa réception, ses canaux, ses relais, ses séductions, ses victimes, ses conséquences. Vingt-cinq spécialistes reconnus de l'irrationnel contemporain, réunis en colloque du 19 au 21 novembre 2019 à la fondation Del Duca, ont cherché à dégager les racines profondes du phénomène et à repérer ses principales excroissances, de manière à le comprendre et l'expliquer. (shrink)

This book was first published in 1984, as the revised edition of a 1979 original. The text is composed of studies in a descending sequence from perfect rationality, through imperfect and problematical rationality, to irrationality. Specifically human rationality is characterized by its capacity to relate strategically to the future, in contrast to the myopic 'gradient climbing' of natural selection. There is trenchant analysis of some of the parallels proposed in this connection between the biological and the social sciences. In (...) the chapter on imperfect rationality the crucial notion is that of 'binding oneself', as Ulysses did before setting out to the Sirens, when weakness of will may prevent us from using our capacity for perfect rationality. The second half of the book deals with rational-actor theory, comparing its logical power and success to rival approaches, and with the varieties of irrationality expressed in contradictory beliefs and desires. (shrink)

The subject of the study is Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of nihilism as an integral part of his socio-philosophical views.The relevance of addressing the concept of nihilism in the context of Friedrich Nietzsche’s reflections on society is due to the fact that, in the philosopher’s view, nihilism is the main concept for substantiating the idea of the crisis nature of modern Western civilization. It is because of nihilism, Friedrich Nietzsche believed, that Western society in the historical perspective is doomed to decline (...) and death.So, Friedrich Nietzsche’s critical approach to the problems of society is conceptual in nature, in a historical-philosophical sense, Nietzschean criticism contributed to the formation of the problem of the formation of a mass society and the idea of a crisis of Western culture in Western philosophical and social thought.In accordance with the purpose of the research, the article analyzes the Nietzschean criticism of society in the context of the reception and reflection of this criticism in the thoughts of famous representatives of non-classical philosophy, which is important for the formation of the modern discourse of Western culture.The paper analyzes the concept of nihilism as a prerequisite for Friedrich Nietzsche’s negative attitude towards the development prospects of Western society. The close connection between the idea of nihilism and rationalism is noted, it is rationalism, according to the philosopher, that is a prerequisite for the moral decline of society.It is emphasized that Friedrich Nietzsche’s fundamental criticism of rationalism at the level of general philosophical ideas has certain deviations when the philosopher considers specific socio-political processes.It is concluded that it is precisely in the socio-political aspect in the views of Friedrich Nietzsche that the complexity of the relationship between the concepts of rational and irrational is most characteristically manifested. This complexity actually goes beyond purely Nietzschean philosophy and becomes a subject of reflection for many representatives of non-classical philosophy.The article, based on the statements of a number of researchers of the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, proves the opinion that the philosopher’s anti-irrationalism can be understood in a constructive way, as a supplement and deepening of modern ideas about the nature of the rational, and not always the positive influence of the rational on man and society.Thus, the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche acts as a prerequisite for the further deepening of ideas in Western culture about the contradictory nature of society in which rational and irrational elements are inextricably intertwined. (shrink)

" Si rien ne change avant un demi-siècle, écrivait Flaubert, l'Europe languira dans de grandes ténèbres ". un semblable pressentiment en persuadait Baudelaire : " Le monde va finir ". Comme si le sentiment de quelque décadence était aussi constant qu'inévitable, Péguy le notait encore : " Tout ce que nous avons défendu recule de jour en jour devant une barbarie, devant une inculture croissante, devant l'envahissement de la corruption politique et sociale. " hier encore, à l'occasion d'un tout banal (...) changement de calendrier, historiens, sociologues, politologues, futurologues ne furent-ils pas sollicités de scruter dans ce qu'ils connaissent du passé ce qu'ils pourraient y voir du futur? Or d'où vient que nous nous interrogions avec autant de perplexité sur l'humanité à venir, su ce n'est que nous doutions de nous y reconnaître? D'où vient ce sentiment d'un hiatus entre ce qui nous précédait et ce qui déjà nous suit? Cet essai s'interroge sur la crise de la conscience contemporaine. Est-elle aussi illusoire que toujours, ou mieux fondée que jamais? Dans un univers de toutes parts médiatisé par les sciences, administré, programmé, planifié et rationalisé par les techniques, la répudiation de la raison, la destitution de la vérité, la frénésie de l'immédiation ne dessinent-elles pas une nouvelle figure de l'homme? Livré à toutes les médiations et n'aspirant qu'à l'immédiat, ne suivant aucune règle mais conditionné par toutes, calculant toutes choses et s'abandonnant aux plus incontrôlées, ; n'en est-il pas disloqué? (shrink)

A journey into the hidden psychological influences that derail our decision-making. Why is it so difficult to end a doomed relationship? Why do we listen to advice just because it came from someone "important"? Why are we more likely to fall in love when there's danger involved? Here, organizational thinker Ori Brafman and his brother, psychologist Rom Brafman, answer these questions and more. Drawing on research from the fields of social psychology, behavioral economics, and organizational behavior, Sway reveals forces (...) that influence every aspect of our personal and business lives, including loss aversion, the diagnosis bias, and the "chameleon effect." The Brafmans not only uncover rational explanations for a wide variety of irrational behaviors, but also point readers toward ways to avoid succumbing to their pull.--From publisher description. (shrink)

In this seminal work, acclaimed philosopher Bernhard Waldenfels deals with the problem of the nature of order after the “shattering of the world,” and the loss of the idea of a universal or fundamental order._ _ Order in the Twilight__ unites phenomenological methodology with recent work on the theory of order, normativity, and dialogue, as well as structuralism and Gestalt theory. Philosophically stringent, it expresses a more optimistic attitude than much modern philosophy, especially deconstruction._ Waldenfels passes the question of (...) order through numerous defining aspects, and concludes that there is not one global order, but rather various conflicting domains of order. Whenever the boundary of a vital or experiential domain is crossed, a discourse speaks at the boundary, not about it, and across a threshold without abolishing it. The rest is rationalization, i.e., an attempt to find a place in the respective order for what is to-be-ordered. But why, the author concludes, should a theory be more unambiguous than reality? _ Order in the Twilight__ is an important book at this time, because it may help lift the humanities out of the skeptical, relativistic disarray in which they have been embroiled in recent decades. Waldenfels does not attempt to dictate what reality should be; rather, he is open to any valid evidences. His book offers a solid footing to the human and social sciences as they seek to escape from deconstructive irrationalism. (shrink)

The idea of enlightenment entails liberty, equality, rationalism, secularism, and the connection between knowledge and human well being. In spite of the setbacks of revolutionary violence, political mass murder, and two world wars, the spread of enlightenment values has become the yardstick by which moral, political, and even scientific advances are measured. Indeed, most critiques of the enlightenment ideal point to failure in implementation rather than principle. By contrast, David Stove, in On Enlightenment, attacks the intellectual roots of enlightenment thought, (...) to define the limitations of its successes and the areas of its likely failures. Stove is not insensitive to the many valuable aspects of enlightenment thought. He champions the use of reason and rationality, and recognizes the falsity of religious claims as well as the importance of individual liberty. What he rejects is the enlightenment's uncritical optimism regarding social progress and its willingness to embrace revolutionary change. What evidence is there that the elimination of superstition will lead to happiness? Or that it is possible to accept Darwinism without Social Darwinism? Or that the enlightenment's liberal, rationalistic outlook will ever lead to the kind of social progress envisioned by its advocates. Despite their best intentions, social reformers who attempt to improve the world as a whole inevitably make things worse. He advocates a conservative "go slow" approach to change, pointing out that today's social structures are so large and complex that any widespread social reform will have innumerable unforeseen consequences. For example, the welfare state may diminish individual initiative, the use of pesticides may increase the food supply while polluting the water supply, the popularizing of university education may lead to a decline in academic standards. Since government has a virtual monopoly on large-scale change, it follows, in Stove's view, that its powers must be limited in order to prevent large-scale damage. Instead, he argues that reforms, when they are to be made at all, must be realistic, local, necessary and never coercive. Writing in the conservative tradition of Edmund Burke with the same passion for clarity and intellectual honesty as George Orwell, David Stove was one of the most precise, articulate, and insightful philosophers of his day. "Never just an academic, Stove was also a prominent, often crotchety, public intellectual of a conservative and, all too often, reactionary bent, many of whose views were extremist on any account, and his targets were many.... For Stove the important question about a belief is not whether it is extreme or mainstream, but whether it is true, or probable, or has sound evidentiary and/or rational credentials. In this he was surely right." -D. D. Todd, Philosophy in Review David Stove taught philosophy at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney. He is the author of Against the Idols of the Age and Scientific Irrationalism, both available from Transaction. Andrew Irvine is professor of philosophy at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Roger Kimball is managing editor of the New Criterion. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Science Wars and BeyondHarold FrommScandalous Knowledge: Science, Truth and the Human, by Barbara Herrnstein Smith; viii & 198 pp. Durham: Duke University Press, 2005, $21.95 paper.Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism, by Paul Boghossian; 139 pp. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, $24.95.Barbara H. Smith, a professor of comparative and English literature at both Duke and Brown, has read widely in philosophy and the sciences. "Scandalous knowledge" is (...) her phrase to describe not the "science wars" (to use the title of the notorious Spring/Summer 1996 issue of Social Text) but the epistemology wars. The chief antagonists in these wars consist, on the one side, of traditional proponents of "classical" philosophy's normative, analytic, justifying, and stable methodologies and proponents, on the other, of such twentieth-century constructivist epistemologies as those of Ludwik Fleck, Thomas Kuhn, Michel Foucault, David Bloor, and Bruno Latour. "The scandal," Smith explains, is classical philosophy's "apparent inability to show how, when and why we can be sure that we know something or, indeed, that we know anything" (p. 1). In her well-executed Introduction, perhaps the best chapter in the book (for its panoramic picture of today's "Theory of Knowledge" conflicts), Smith prepares us for her espousal of constructivist methodologies but first distinguishes between "epistemological constructivism"—a philosophical methodology with an antagonism toward universal rationalities, philosophical "realism," in-itselfness, or [End Page 580] the Correspondence Theory of Truth—and the cultural critique often called "social constructionism," a distinction she acknowledges to be sometimes difficult and hazy. Social constructionism, a highly political activity, is critical of traditional notions of the normative and is engaged with the workings of cultural critics, ethicists, feminists, gender theorists, critics of institutional power, and the "goes without saying" of mainstream assumptions in the treatment of race, sexuality, the "natural" and the innate. In a word, the global conflict she describes is between "reason" (a contested term) and politics (not very contested, except for who and what are political), between the putative eternal verities of thought and the contingencies of daily life. Whereas a "constructivist" sociologist of science would stress the social, collective, intersubjective, institutional aspects of scientific knowledge, questioning "the standard understandings and treatments of such terms as fact, discovery, evidence, proof, objectivity and, of course, knowledge and science themselves" (p. 7), the "social constructionist" would be more likely to focus on class, politics, economics, and culture seen as a congeries of power structures.Smith is particularly distressed by the claims of traditional philosophy when she asks, "May it not be the case that the strict distinctions and divisions of labor that underwrite philosophy's self-honoring role in the study of science and knowledge beg all the relevant questions and, where maintained, insure philosophy's self-confinement?" (p. 10). She sees knowledge as assembled from multiple sources: philosophy, science, social sciences, human animality and subjectivity but she is not suggesting an abandonment of the notion of "truth," just a curbing of the notion of absolute knowledge, or knowledge of things-in-themselves (though even traditionalists believe being known can't be an aspect of a thing-in-itself.) In the process of constructing truths, "reason is not 'abandoned' for 'irrationalism'; scientific knowledge is not 'equated with' myth or ideology; and so forth... but are reconceived as variable gradients rather than fixed, distinct and polar opposites" (p. 11). She prefers to speak of the "superiority" of certain claims rather than their fixed universality via "rationalist-realist-positivist epistemology." As her overall theme, Smith wants to defend constructivist epistemology as the appropriate one for the twenty-first century and, to a slightly lesser extent, the goals of social construction, while deriding as unfounded the attacks against their purported relativism, nihilism, fatuous egalitarianism, and political correctness. Her performance is undeniably impressive but her success is mixed.The stronger first half of the book mounts a plausible defense of [End Page 581] constructivist epistemology. Starting off with a quick survey of "Pre-Post-Modern" relativists from Heraclitus to Wittgenstein, Smith moves on to twentieth-century modernist questioners of objectivist-universalist epistemes, from Heidegger and Einstein to Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, Lenin, and in the arts Woolf, Stravinsky... (shrink)

Nikolas Kompridis' Critique and Disclosure is a sustained argument for the proposition that critical social theory in the tradition of the Frankfurt School is best carried forward by rejecting central aspects of Habermas' neo-Kantian version of it. The most promising future direction for critical theory according to Kompridis involves a reconsideration of the resources of hermeneutic phenomenology, especially renewed attention to the Heideggerian concept ‘disclosure’. To this end, Kompridis develops a distinctive dialectical version of this concept. I agree that (...) Kantian versions of critical theory are philosophically suspect, and that critical theory is most conceptually vital and politically trenchant when turned away from ‘discourse ethics' and the like. I am a bit less sanguine than is Kompridis with a turn to Heidegger, however, and raise several issues having to do with that aspect of Kompridis' account. This caution is not rooted simply in the historical fact that critical theory from its inception has attempted to immunize itself against phenomenology; it is rather a conceptual matter. In my judgment, Kompridis does not need to develop, as he does, an intricate account of overlap between what he holds best about critical theory and Heidegger’s ontology. If one were looking for historical antecedents that do not come freighted with what Horkheimer derided as ‘irrationalism’, one would do better to investigate early German Romanticism, in which there is an explicitly interpretive yet dialectical methodology on offer. Moreover, the central doctrines of Jena Romanticism exhibit more positive points of contact with the earlier, more skeptical forms of critical theory that Kompridis might favor, e.g. Adorno’s. (shrink)