In light of the arguments presented by a certain Mark Scheher*, I have come to think that rationality (of an individual) depends on certain belief systems that one holds on to and practices. That right and wrong, true and false, are all relative, but the irony of the statement is that these are relative to the belief system one holds on to.
What i’m referring to is this: you define your rationality(or sanity) on what you know and believe to be true. But there exists a serious impediment to this proposal which can be explained with the help of an example.
Consider, a young lad being told by one of his parents to tell that he/she is not at home when he/she is, if called by someone. At first the boy is confused because the facts are not proper and he questions them.He simply terms the situation and the task assigned as ‘irrational.’ I would call this as ‘inherent rationality’ based on reasoning whether the given set of facts actually add up or not. I have no idea from where it came from. But based upon my belief system i could give a perfectly “rational” explanation for this. However, my rationality is subjected to me. As will be the case for any explanation that you might give. It would be subjected to your belief system.
Now we come to the question: If all this ‘rationality’ is actually just subject to what i believe to be true, and if what i believe in actually turns out to be irrational(based on inherent rationality) then who is to be blamed? Is it that we are incapable of understanding the truth? or is it that we have no access to it and thus we go on believing what we believe? Is there anything called ‘Truth’? this was the plight of Mark.
Many irrational acts could be justified based on belief systems practiced around the world. An example of these acts could be someone trying to commit suicide, mercy killings, genocide or even something as simple as beginning to smoke or drink just to keep mind off things that bother too much, and there are many situations that arise in daily life. These would be termed ‘irrational’ based on one’s ‘inherent rationality’ and not on any existing Belief System, although some belief systems might actually incorporate ‘inherent rationality.’
One such example is of Paul*. He is an upright individual and a follows a belief system based on the teachings of the Bible. A close friend of Mark, Paul soon stumbles upon the ideas presented by the author in paragraph one. He is dismayed and confused and begins to questions his belief system. Upon realizing that Truth is relative to ones belief system, Paul’s reactions of disbelief and confusion are justifiable. Paul’s story doesn’t end here. He’s still in so much confusion that he now begins to intoxicate himself believing that it would provide some solace from the questions that he is trying to find answers of. He claims he’s is not an addict though. Here we see a classic example of one being caught up by arguments that one is not able to find answers to. But the reactions that follow up can be termed as completely irrational based on one’s inherent rationality. We know that intoxicants lead to premature death if not to addiction. How could a drug bring one solace when its sole purpose is to actually end one’s life prematurely? The facts don’t add up. Knowing this Paul ventured into the relm of irrationality.
Something has happened to one’s belief system. Not because it was questioned but because it was changed to something else and the current belief system actually led one to make a completely irrational choice. But then you come up with a question: Don’t we need to have a certain set of guidelines to make rational decisions. The answer is an annoying Yes. But the best part is that you get to choose your belief system. For that you need to use your sense of Inherent Rationality and question the facts. There is NO singular belief system that provides all the answers. But there is always one that incorporates inherent rationality.
* Names changed to protect identity
