OVO

Since the terms ‘reason’ and ‘rationalism’ are vague, it will be necessary to explain roughly the way in which they are used here. First, they are used in a wide sense; they are used to cover not only intellectual activity but also observation and experiment. It is necessary to keep this remark in mind, since ‘reason’ and ‘rationalism’ are often used in a different and more narrow sense, in opposition not to ‘irrationalism’ but to ‘empiricism’ ; if used in this way, rationalism extols intelligence above observation and experiment, and might therefore be better described as ‘intellectualism’. But when I speak here of ‘rationalism’, I use the word always in a sense which includes ‘empiricism’ as well as ‘intellectualism’; just as science makes use of experiments as well as of thought. Secondly, I use the word ‘rationalism’ in order to indicate, roughly, an attitude that seeks to solve as many problems as possible by an appeal to reason, i.e. to clear thought and experience, rather than by an appeal to emotions and passions. This explanation, of course, is not very satisfactory, since all terms such as ‘reason’ or ‘passion’ are vague ; we do not possess ‘reason’ or ‘passions’ in the sense in which we possess certain physical organs, for example, brains or a heart, or in the sense in which we possess certain ‘faculties’, for example, the power of speaking, or of gnashing our teeth. In order therefore to be a little more precise, it may be better to explain rationalism in terms of practical attitudes or behaviour. We could then say that rationalism is an attitude of readiness to listen to critical arguments and to learn from experience. It is fundamentally an attitude of admitting that ‘I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth’. It is an attitude which does not lightly give up hope that by such means as argument and careful observation, people may reach some kind of agreement on many problems of importance; and that, even where their demands and their interests clash, it is often possible to argue about the various demands and proposals, and to reach – perhaps by arbitration – a compromise which, because of its equity, is acceptable to most, if not to all. In short, the rationalist attitude, or, as I may perhaps label it, the ‘attitude of reasonableness’, is very similar to the scientific attitude, to the belief that in the search for truth we need co-operation, and that, with the help of argument, we can in time attain something like objectivity.

From The Open Society and Its Enemies Volume 2. Harper Torchbooks 1967.

Dena Potter: Rasta Inmates Spend 10 Years in Isolation for Hair

It is [Kendall Gibson's] hair — winding locks he considers a measure of his Rastafarian faith — that makes him a threat, according to Virginia Department of Corrections Operating Procedure No. 864.1. The rule took effect on Dec. 15, 1999. Inmates had two choices: cut their hair no longer than their collars and shave their beards, or be placed in administrative segregation.

Paul von Zielbauer: Inmates Are Free to Practice Black Supremacist Religion in New York, a Judge Rules

Mr. [Intelligent Tarref] Allah is a Five Percenter, part of a black militant group that broke from the Nation of Islam in the 1960′s. The New York State prison system has long regarded it as a violence-prone gang, much as the system also regards the Latin Kings, Crips or the Aryan Brotherhood. The name derives from the concept that only 5 percent of the world’s people break free from the worship of a false ”mystery God” and become gods to themselves and their families.

Justin Penrose: Rapist Jamaile Morally in Boiling Oil Jail Attack

A jailed killer poured boiling oil over another inmate because he refused to convert to Islam. Jamaile Morally, 26 – sentenced to life as part of a gang that raped, tortured and murdered a teenage girl and left another for dead – led two other inmates in carrying out the attack.

BBC: Kenya ‘Deports Muslim Hate Cleric Abdullah al-Faisal’

He has served four years in a UK prison after being convicted of soliciting the murder of Jews and Hindus.

Religion Cause: Miranda Rights Waived In Answers About Religious Belief and Prayer

Earlier this week in Berghuis v. Thompkins, (Sup. Ct., June 1, 2010), the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision made it easier for police to obtain a waiver of Miranda rights by suspects being questioned. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, held that police can continue questioning a suspect until he clearly invokes his right to remain silent. Furthermore, when questioning continues after a Miranda warning has been given and understood, the accused’s later uncoerced statement implies a waiver of his right to remain silent. The uncoerced statement in this case was a response by the accused to questions about his belief in God. Here is Justice Kennedy’s account: About 2 hours and 45 minutes into the interrogation, [Police Detective] Helgert asked Thompkins, “Do you believe in God?” …. Thompkins made eye contact with Helgert and said “Yes,” as his eyes “well[ed] up with tears.” … “Do you pray to God?” Thompkins said “Yes.” … Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” … Thompkins answered “Yes” and looked away…. Thompkins refused to make a written confession, and the interrogation ended about 15 minutes later.

From the 1906 book The Outbursts of Everett True by A. D. Condo and J. W. Raper. With thanks to Barnacle Press.

Plato was the theorist of an aristocratic form of absolute government. As the fundamental problem of political theory, he posed the following questions: ‘Who should rule? Who is to govern the state? The many, the mob, the masses, or the few, the elect, the elite?’

Once the question ‘Who should rule?’ is accepted as fundamental, then obviously there can be only one reasonable answer: not those who do not know, but those who do know, the sages; not the mob, but the few best. That is Plato’s theory of the rule by the best, of aristocracy.

It is somewhat odd that great theorists of democracy and great adversaries of this Platonic theory – such as Rousseau – adopted Plato’s statement of the problem instead of rejecting it as inadequate, for it is quite clear that the fundamental question in political theory is not the one Plato formulated. The question is not ‘Who should rule? or ‘Who is to have power? but ‘How much power should be granted to the government?’ or perhaps more precisely, ‘How can we develop our political institutions in  such a manner that even incompetent and dishonest rulers cannot do too much harm?’ In other words, the fundamental problem of political theory is the problem of checks and balances, of institutions by which political power, its arbitrariness and its abuse can be controlled and tamed.

I do not doubt that the kind of democracy in which we in the West believe is no more than a state in which power is in this sense, limited and controlled. For the kind of democracy in which we believe is by no means an ideal state; we know perfectly well that much happens that should not happen. It is childish to strive after ideals in politics, and any reasonable mature man in the West knows that ‘All political action consists in choosing  the lesser evil’ (to quote the Viennese poet Karl Kraus).

For us there are only two types of government: those in which the governed can get rid of their rulers without bloodshed, and those in which the governed can, if at all, get rid of their rulers only by bloodshed. The first of these types of government we call democracy, the second tyranny or dictatorship. But the names do not really matter here, only the facts do.

We in the West believe in democracy only in this sober sense: as the least evil form of government. This is also how the man described it who has done more than anyone to save democracy and the West: ‘Democracy is the worst form of government,’ Winston Churchill said once, ‘except of course all those other forms of government that have been tried from time to time.’

Thus we believe in democracy, but not because it is the rule of the people. Neither you nor I rule; on the contrary, both you and and I are being ruled, and sometimes more than we like. Yet we believe in democracy as the form of government which is compatible with peace and effective political opposition, and therefore with political freedom.

I have mentioned above the unfortunate fact that Plato’s misleading question ‘Who is to rule?’ was never clearly rejected by the philosophers of politics. Rousseau asked the same question, but give the opposite answer: ‘The will of the people shall rule – the will of the many, not of the few;’ a dangerous answer indeed, since it leads to the mythological deification of ‘The People’ and ‘The Will of the People.’ Marx too asks, quite in Plato’s vein: ‘Who shall rule, the capitalists or the proletarians?’ And he too gave the answer; ‘The many; not the few; the proletarians should rule, not the capitalists.’

Contrary to Rousseau and to Marx we see in the majority decision of a vote or of an election only a method of producing decision without bloodshed, and with the least possible restriction of freedom. Of course, majorities often arrive at mistaken decisions, and we must insist that minorities have rights and freedoms which no majority decision can overrule.

What I have said may support my suggestion that the fashionable terms ‘mass’, ‘elite’ and ‘uprising of the masses’ originate from the ideologies of Platonism and Marxism.

Just as Rousseau and Marx simply inverted the Platonic answer, so some opponents of Marx inverted the Marxist answer: they want to counteract the ‘revolt of the masses’ by a ‘revolt of the elite’, thereby reverting to the Platonic answer and the claim of the elite to rule. But this whole approach is mistaken. God save us from that anti-Marxism which simply inverts Marxism: we know it only too well; even Communism is no worse than the anti-Marxist ‘elite’ which ruled Italy, Germany and Japan and which it took a global war to remove.

Lecture in Zurich 1958 at invitation of Albert Hunold. From In Search of a Better World. Routledge 1984

Trevor Blake: Rhino Beetle. From photograph. Pen. April 2010.