Normally I eschew these things, as they've always struck me as a limiting way to pigeonhole someone's political/philosophical outlook...but I have to admit I found this one interesting. Would you agree with the way it's set up? If so, where would you fall on it? If not, what would you change? Not being a huge fan of loaded meaning in this sort of supposedly objective system, I might substitute "Reason enthroned" and "Irrational" with "Classical" and "Romantic", since those seem to more closely mirror the modes of thought associated with those descriptions. Also "State Worship" & "State as Ultimate Evil" could just as easily be "Collectivist" & "Individualist", respectively. Even with those minor edits, the intent as well as the placement of the political bodies still holds up, IMO. Let me know what you think. Also: http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart http://www.jerrypournelle.com/
That graph is a load of nonsense in almost all respects. In particular, "rationalism" isn't a useful measuring stick.
Seems like an accurate description... Is anyone going to argue for Nazi rationality? Or against Rand's dogmatic reason?
A Nazi would certainly see his views as the most rational. In fact, just about everyone does. That's the problem here.
While someone might believe they're rational, that doesn't mean that they are. I don't think there's much rational basis for German romanticism. The Nazis saw a race war where none existed; embraced a glorious, heroic past that never was; and envisioned a German-dominated world that was never a realistic outcome. And they believed it was some great unawakened heroic component within themselves that would see them triumph in the end. Sounds pretty irrational to me.
I think you're missing the point. I don't disagree with you about Nazism. But since everyones views differ, no matter which views are most rational, there can be no agreement for the purposes of the chart, and an attempt at defining the scale will necessarily be perjorative. At least there could be broad agreement for the 'statist' axis.
Oh, that can't be right. It said I scored 100% on personal liberty and 80% on economic liberty, which makes me, according to the chart, a Libertarian.
Two people with two perfectly rational thought processes can still arrive at vastly different positions, depending on what premises they start with. Notice that, on the Pournelle chart, both Objectivists and Communists are at the top of the rationality scale even though the are very contradictory worldviews. I disagree. Of course, as a rationalist, I would. Reason is not subjective, although people's perceptions of it can be. A philosophy that follows from reasoned extension from first principles is rational; one that doesn't, isn't. Rand built her philosophy on reasoned outgrowths of the principles of self-interest and objective reality; Marx built his on reasoned outgrowths of the principles of class tension and historical materialism. Both are rational. Yes, but even the "necessary evil" vs "dangerous-but-good" judgments could be argued...
I'm not at all convinced about the validity of the "reason enthroned" - "irrational" axis, but as to the "state as a necessary evil" and "state dangerous but good" axis, I am very definitely on the side of "state dangerous but good." I consider taxes to be a necessary evil economically (necessary, because no society can function without them, evil, because they have a very clear negative economic impact), but not the state in itself. In fact, it is because I consider the state in itself to be good that I consider taxes necessary, though harmful. Nevertheless, I am closest to libertarians as far as any major socio-politico-economic outlook is concerned. However, according to that chart, I would be closest to Welfare liberals. Furthermore, I have attempted to set up my three rules of liberty and responsibility on the basis of the most rigorous logic, but I see the groups that the chart considers as the most rational to be Communists and people like Ayn Rand. I do not consider either of them to be all that rational. Also, it has the only difference between conservatives and welfare liberals being that liberals are more rational than conservatives. I am not at all convinced that either philosophy is more rational than the other, and in practice both of them have people varying from quite rational to downright irrational. So I'm going to have to say that I don't think the chart is actually all that useful or meaningful of an analysis.
Not necessarily, for two reasons: 1) If the first principles are not, themselves, rational, any argumentation done on the basis of those principles will not be rational, either. One very clear principle of logic is that even a valid argument does not lead to truth if the starting propositions are false. If you start from the principle that the universe works by magic, no matter how carefully you apply rigorous logic to the implications you attempt to derive from that, I do not see how your final philosophy can be classified as rational. 2) The "reasoned extension" might not be based on valid argumentation. I suppose just about every philosophy tries to use logic to justify its concepts, including those that an outsider might consider thoroughly irrational. But it is pretty hard to define the difference between rationalisation and reason. It is not because someone like Marx or Rand tries to argue that their system flows rationally from their starting premices, that that is the case. It is notoriously hard to apply deductive logic to reality, and inductive logic is always and necessarily open to criticism.
First principles are foundational beliefs; they are the unprovable precepts at the heart of every philosophy. Examples? "An individual human being should be able to live free of coercion so long as he does not coerce others." "Individual human beings should be required to act in ways conducive to the improvement of society." Totally contradictory first principles, each of which can be supported with rational arguments, but neither of which can be proven to be the case. As I said, EVERY philosophy is built on some unprovable assertion. Every philosophy seeks to promote the "good" in life, but what is "good" is largely a matter of perspective. I'd say that peoples whose first principles are contradictory will have difficulty sharing the same society. True, and where not it should be shown. You can spot a rationalization when someone says they believe X, you point out that X results in horrible consequence Y, and, though they acknowledge Y, they still believe X. A reasoned argument from a philosophical base might be: "Because in a free exchange buyers and sellers agree to an acceptable, mutually beneficial price, there is nothing to be gained by introducing the state as a third party in that exchange." A rationalization would be: "Because the beauty of women is a temptation, they must be covered at all times when they are in public lest they inspire impure thoughts or actions in others." The first attempts to make a rule based on fact, that a skeptical observer could test simply by playing one of the roles in a series of hypothetical exchanges. The second could be immediately disproven by a skeptical observer, simply by his refraining from lustful action. In both cases, a test (free exchanges are mutually beneficial when no third party intervenes, men are incapable of controlling themselves when exposed to uncovered women) is available to challenge the rule; the rationalization fails. Agreed, but is no more logical to live one's life by haphazardly assembled, partially contradictory principles, either...
That is the theory. In practice, they are the unproven precepts at the heart of every philosophy. It is pretty hard to "prove" that any of them are true, but it certainly is possible to examine them and see whether or not they fit the criteria of congruency, consistency and meaning. Some actually are unprovable (such as the principle that a self-contradictory system is not true), and as such are unavoidable in any rational system, but not all of them are of that nature. Nevertheless, as you say yourself, "each of them can be supported by rational arguments." Anything which you can use an argument to validate or invalidate is not, by definition, a first principle. It is merely an unproven assumption. Sure, you can argue that they can't be "proven," but usually, when one says that, one is referring to "proof" in the absolute, deductive sense. In that sense, nothing is provable. But if inductive logic can be used to validate or invalidate a statement, that gives it more or less validity. My example of "the universe works by magic" is an example of that type. Sure, you can't prove it true or prove it false. But sound inductive logic, and testing it for the principles of congruency, consistency and meaning show that it isn't actually worth much. Thus, the mere fact that it is accepted philosophically without proof does not make it a genuine "first principle."
A philosophy for living entails determining what aspect of life is good and seeking to expand, increase, prolong, etc. it. It might be knowledge, justice, freedom, solidarity, wealth, contentment, etc., or some particular combination of any of them. My point is this: perceptions of what good should be maximized vary from person to person. One can show that a particular choice is more "efficient" or "easier" or "more fulfilling," etc., but that does not in any way prove the superiority of that good to one who values a different good. Of course, if a philosophy is to be rational (when it's foundational belief cannot be proven), its supporters should provide reasons to show why it is at least desirable, if not objectively superior.
