3 ms·
You’re right, it’s more nuanced than that and cannot be reduced just to rationality. I’d be the first to agree that neither rationality nor emotion is alone eno
by strogonoff 3y ago
You’re right, it’s more nuanced than that and cannot be reduced just to rationality. I’d be the first to agree that neither rationality nor emotion is alone enough. Defeat in WWI has contributed to emotional context a lot.
However, to say it was all just emotion and post-rationalization is to oversimplify even more. The two were intermingled even since 19th century (e.g., Lamarck).
- lukan 3y ago"However, to say it was all just emotion and post-rationalization is to oversimplify" Sure. I remember from Mein Kampf, where Hitler talks about his Antisemitism. His Intuition always advised against it, but with his rational mind, step by step he came to the logical conclusion, that yes, the jews are basically to blame for everything. (Interesting that he remarks, that his intuition left him for some years, after he made that "rational" decision) It was twisted all around.
- strogonoff 3y agoAs Kahneman wrote, rationality is logical coherence, a rational person can believe in ghosts if the rest of their beliefs are consistent with ghosts. A rational person can prefer to be hated instead of loved, if it’s consistent. Most of the book is about economics and rational behavior in terms of utility, but that part seems to apply here as well. Logical coherence is always internal, it can only be complete within itself and will inevitably conflict with external reality and other internally coherent beliefs. It’s possible for a Nazi to be extremely rational in this way, whereas a reasonable person cannot be entirely rational by definition.