Have any of you folks read the chapter in The Open Society and Its Enemies Volume II By Karl Popper titled “Oracular Philosophy and the Revolt Against Reason”?
If so, can you critique whether I understand what he’s saying here.
On page 218 he writes:
“We have to conclude from this that the rationalist attitude cannot possibly be based upon argument or experience, and that a comprehensive rationalism is untenable.
But this means that whoever adopts the rationalist attitude does so because without reasoning he has adopted some decision, or belief, or habit, or behaviour, which therefore in its turn must be called irrational. Whatever it may be, we can describe it as an irrational faith in reason. Rationalism is therefore far from comprehensive or self-contained.”(The Open Society and Its Enemies Volume II, p. 218)
I imagined an example to try to refute his claim that you can’t adopt the rationalist attitude rationally. Let’s imagine Tom wants to persuade Jerry into having a rationalist attitude because it’s effective in solving all kinds of problems in reality. Jerry asks Tom to show him how it’s effective. Tom gives examples and persuades Jerry to become a rationalist. Didn’t Jerry adopt a rationalist attitude rationally?
Well, no.
When Tom persuades Jerry that rationalism is effective, what standards is Jerry using to evaluate Tom’s persuasion? If Jerry is using rational standards to judge the evidence and arguments Tom presents, then Jerry was already operating with some commitment to rationalism before the conversation began. But if Jerry isn’t using rational standards, then his acceptance of Tom’s case would itself be non-rational.
Further down on the same page he writes:
“For there are other tenable attitudes, notably that of critical rationalism, which recognizes that the fundamental rationalist attitude is based upon an irrational decision, or upon faith in reason. Accordingly, the choice is entirely open. We are free to choose some form of irrationalism, even some radical or comprehensive form. But we are also free to choose a critical form of rationalism, one which frankly admits its limitations, and its basis in an irrational decision, and in so far, a certain priority of irrationalism.”
(The Open Society and Its Enemies Volume II, p. 218)
So Popper means that logically speaking, the non-rational choice comes first, and rational inquiry flows from that initial commitment. The choice to be rational is itself not rationally compelled.
Critical rationalism is a special type of approach that acknowledges the rationalist attitude is based on an irrational choice. But, it’s different from irrationalism because after that initial choice, critical rationalism subjects everything else - including its own methods - to criticism and testing.
I’d appreciate any feedback or criticisms.