Rational Philosophy

On the difference between holding an opinion and acting in accordance with that opinion. When such dissonance is rational and when not.

The media and Barack Obama’s opponents have focused a great deal of attention on Obama’s voting record in the senate. Robin Toner publishes a thoughtful piece today on whether Obama’s voting record necessarily gives a clear indicator of his ability to build consensus and lead effectively. As Toner points out, senators Obama and Clinton have voted the same way almost without exception. But whereas Clinton apparently accedes to the traditional doctrine that progressive or overtly liberal politics can’t gain traction, since the country leans right, Obama presents the perspective that good ideas and sensible policy changes can be popular with anyone who isn’t rigid in his or her thinking. Obama believes that one shouldn’t underestimate the desire of the country to reverse some of the poor management of the past eight years through making pragmatic and valuable policy changes.

The critical point seems to that Obama’s personal opinion will be only one part of his thinking when it comes to guiding policy and decision making. As Obama himself expresses it: “I’m interested in solving problems as opposed to imposing doctrine.”

While the concept of opinion versus action has particular relevance to politics, it transcends politics and appears everywhere that one finds opinions.

To demonstrate this we need only find an example from our own life. Here’s one of mine: My neighbor has a driveway, which, in Brooklyn, is like gold. Unfortunately for him he is so territorial about his driveway that he spends huge amounts of energy and time protecting the driveway entrance — watching out for people who pull up for a minute to load or unload, calling the police when someone parks part way in front of his driveway.

In my opinion, my neighbor’s fixation on his driveway is out of proportion to its real importance. And, in a congested neighborhood, his unwillingness to accept some use of the space for things like loading and unloading by his neighbors strikes me as poor judgment. But, do I act on my opinion? No. I think he’s wrong, but I also know that to oppose his perspective wouldn’t get either of us anywhere. He is firmly entrenched in his opinion. It’s a situation in which any action on my part would be futile or inflammatory.

This kind of dissonance comes up all the time in families, too. We yield. We compromise. We find ways to influence. Or we don’t. If we forever and only acted in accordance with our ideas and opinions we’d soon find ourselves shunned and isolated.

As Obama understands, expressing an opinion is one thing, forcing it on someone is quite another.

There will always be some opinions about which we feel so strongly that we can’t do other than act on them. But there are many times when we can admit that if we insist on imposing our opinion we won’t achieve the best outcome overall. That’s the kind of change Obama seems to be talking about.

 

�

On reconciling what we want to think with what logic dictates.

After reading the NY Times editorial on the Supreme Court’s review of gun control laws, and thinking that I generally agreed with the board’s perspective — that some manner of gun control was not only a good thing but constitutional, I glanced down at the readers’ comments and began to question how I’d arrived at my conclusion. Most of the readers’ comments seemed to oppose the board’s analysis. Many of them seemed to have strong, rational views on why the NY Times editorial board was wrong. Had I perhaps sidestepped a thoughtful analysis of the issues? Do I really know where I stand on the effectiveness and desirability of gun control laws, or have I simply adopted a default, liberal stance?

And to mark the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President George Bush got back onto his soap box today at the Pentagon to argue against any precipitous move toward troop withdrawal. He warned that if America pulls its forces back too quickly, the result will be “chaos and carnage.” Whereas, “chaos and carnage” would not be valid descriptors of what’s been happening in Iraq for the past five years?

But I’ve long harbored the suspicion that my presumptive position that I would support a withdrawal of troops from Iraq has been founded on ideology, or, perhaps to be more precise, on an opposition to hawkish Republican ideology, rather than logic and reason.

In a nutshell, some things we believe because we want to believe them, not because we’ve thought them through. This is what ideology or partisan thinking is all about, I suppose.

It’s a very appealing way to spilce the issues. It makes things so much easier. We pick an ideology that appeals to us and frame our thinking through that lens. It also seems to be a very common and perhaps inherently human thing to do.

Consciousness achieved evolutionary success because it allowed us to understand events and act accordingly through an abstract perception of the world around us. The very foundation of conscious thought is the manipulation of ideas. Ideas, by definition, simplify the infinite variations that occur in the real world by lumping things together into useful categories. If one were to measure the height, density and hue of cloud coverage and the time variation of precipitation, for instance, one would quickly conclude that no two rainy days are exactly alike. But the concept “rainy day” is sufficient to cover all of these variations and convey the idea of an abstract rainy day.

Abstract thought has been so successful as an evolutionary advantage that it’s allowed us to find ways to survive in climates that would otherwise kill us, to eat and drink despite local droughts, and to realize such huge efficiencies through industrialization and mechanization that for the most part we don’t have anything to do with the processes that shelter, feed and clothe us.

Ideology is a form of categorization. We lump together into a convenient bucket a whole set of related concepts about our philosophy on life or politics or whatever. And, even better, the bucket has a whole set of rules about what goes in there (sometimes these are a little vague or personal, but for the most part they’re pretty solid). If we’re a liberal, we oppose the war in Iraq, support some manner of gun control, abhor Repulican attempts to dismantle Roe vs. Wade, desire more government investment in healthcare… etc., etc.

Is this a bad thing?

It’s neither an inherently bad thing, nor an inherently good thing. Since we categorize by virtue of our way of thinking, it can hardly be intrinsically bad. And since it leads to so much strife and anguish in the world it can hardly be wholly good.

As with so many things, the awareness that we do it, and being prepared to doubt ourselves when we do it, seems to be the important thing.

For more rational, science-based explanations of life’s meaning and purpose, please refer to my book: LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive.