,
17 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
The Rationalist conception of man is that he is unfairly put upon by circumstances of birth (culture, religion, place, language). The Rationalist aims to free him of these, giving rise to a 'blank slate' conception of man common to Rationalist Humanism (Marxism, liberalism).
In this blank slate Rationalism, culture & tradition become things to be freed from, rather than things that *helpfully* constrain, teach and can be gradually improved. This Rationalist conception extends to inherited language, mores, religion, economics, and today even genetics.
Now, the most moderate "constrained vision" Rationalists (classical liberals, conservative liberals) have recognised that the blank slate vision of man has some very big downside risks that need to be mitigated and ringfenced by 'institutions' that *helpfully* constrain man.
What moderate Rationalists have done is substitute a vision of man constrained by cultural inheritance with a vision of man constrained by a Rationalist conception of political organisation, namely the mass democratic state. Replacing organic constraints with synthetic ones.
Extreme or "unconstrained" Rationalists (Marxists, dem socialists) not only reject inherited constraints but (mostly) also Rationalist synthetic constraints. For them, blank-slatism is permanent. Man must be wholly "freed" - constraints dismantled, repeatedly, perpetually.
Political competition as we've known it is between these two types of Enlightenment Rationalism & how 'blank slate man' is best able to flourish. The alternative conception of man as an *inherently* constrained being (traditionalism, conservatism) has virtually zero footing.
So entrenched is this Rationalist political battle ground, that when a traditionalist/religious conception of man tries to break through politically, people's heads explode. It's so outside of the Matrix that it causes a political nuclear meltdown.
I think this is why politics feels so incredibly charged/bitter right now. Something is trying to break through that the Rationalist axis regards as an existential threat to the Enlightenment - to modernity as we know it. I'm a lot more optimistic about this disruption.
Now, the constrained Rationalists (libertarians, classical liberals, conservative liberals) are an interesting group. Many are caught in the twilight zone between the Rationalist and Traditionalist/Empiricist conceptions of man. They recognise that constraints are imperative...
...but they doubt the sustainability, traction, authenticity of synthetic constraints. Some of this group might even be considered Traditionalist/Empiricist in the Anglosphere where synthetic constraints might line up closely with the culture, but Rationalist with respect to...
...their desire to impose the same set of synthetic constraints in places where they are culturally or organically incompatible. This is why the deepest political divorce occurring now seems to be between constrained Rationalists and constrained Traditionalists/Empiricists.
This is why rightwing Rationalists like the Tories & GOP (& in SA the DA) are splintering most. Tories losing to Brexit Party, GOP with a Trumpian takeover (DA bleeding out to the VF+). Initial beneficiaries in first-past-the-post politics might be a unified Rationalist left.
Problem for the Rationalist left is the extremes are getting too extreme for the moderates. They're splitting too. Makes strategic sense for the centrist left/right Rationalists to merge: Bush II, Joe Biden - same person. Cameron, Blair - same person. Ramaphosa, Maimane - same!
Such a merger could help the Rationalists stave off the Traditionalist/Empiricist advance for a while. At least 3 problems for them, however. 1) They're too used to fighting each other, 2) don't want to relinquish fiefdoms, 3) their ideas increasingly seen as weak tea/failing.
The rise of Traditionalism/Empiricism still faces immense challenges & is far from guaranteed. Rationalists wield state power. The state itself is an inherently Rationalist institution. Religious tradition is flimsy. Non-state institutions are underdeveloped.
Traditionalism/Empiricism also may stumble into grave error and go too far. Bad traditions could resurface, poor empirical analysis could lead to erroneous conclusions. Ancient religious mores could be misinterpreted or misapplied. This is actually inevitable. But...
...instead of the perpetual universal revolution (chaos) of extreme Rationalism, or the rigid & centralised error risk of moderate Rationalism, Traditionalism/Empiricism offers the chance of distributed/decentralised experimentation/error risk and political flexibility. END
