As long as the laws of logic are not established above all other political laws, we will be in chaos. Any irrationality will be considered truth. Russell's theorem demonstrates this.
Growing irrationality has led to the value of a work of art being determined by its authorship rather than its artistic quality.
The truth of a doctrine is granted by having a majority of supporters rather than by demonstration or proof.
Unfortunately, excellence is always a minority quality. The majority are usually mediocre, and we are sinking into an increase in entropy that permeates society with mediocrity. Desgraciadamente, las redes sociales buscan mayorías.
Society has always exhibited irrational tendencies, but modern social incentives and cognitive biases may be amplifying irrational beliefs and behaviors. The rise of social media and group dynamics often rewards socially adaptive, not necessarily evidence-based, thinking, making irrationality more visible and influential. While irrationality is not new, its expression and impact may be increasing due to these evolving social and technological factors
This suggestion seems to be based on a sort of nostalgia for a past that was somehow better. I’d suggest at least three problems here.
1. I suggest that society can be neither rational nor irrational as it is not a conscious entity in its own right. Rather it is made up of many individual entities. The concept of society is a way of simplifying the nature of human sociability in an attempt to generalise about trends in behaviour. Like the idea of human culture, it is a useful way of making sense of people, though as with any attempt to generalise it is necessarily limited by the limitations associated with statistical analysis (yes, even in qualitative work that tries to focus more on the individual in society) – especially relating to distribution, probability and error; it is misleading to anthropomorphize such concepts (society cannot think, only people within it).
2. Nostalgic hearkening back to a past inevitably focuses on partial analyses and questionable memory and/or data. Even if analysing individuals (not societies) it would be questionable whether the ‘then’ can really be compared with the ‘now’. Humans have ever demonstrated that they are not rational and to suggest they are more or less so today as individuals within social groups ignores the evidence of history in any field. People continue to follow psychotic or sociopathic leaders at national and organisational levels; the way such people have been and are idolized or at least tolerated (Alexander, Hitler, Putin, Disney, Weinstein, Musk) seems to show (quoting Aristarchus, on nostalgia, in episode 1 of the BBC production of I Claudius) ‘it never was what it was’ (so I think we all need to take care when hearkening back to the good old days that never where as good as we remember or were told by dewy eyed grandparents).
3. It seems particularly bizarre to suggest that artistic quality can be determined by rational processes, even if rationality is possible for humans in the first place (a debatable idea). Although I have not studied art, I am aware of the idea that the Mona Lisa has long (not just today) been so famous, and thus so valuable, as much for its chequered history as it is for its artistic quality; was this ever a case of rational valuation and rationally assessed artistic quality – or is it more an example of typical bounded rationality influenced by the ever-human factors of myth, gossip and that wonderfully human strength of subjectivity? After all, the trope that great artists’ work is often not appreciated in their own time, seems rather at odds with the claim that people are less rational now than in the past, otherwise they would have all been lauded then as well as now. Today, at least to me, it seems a little more common for artists’ work to be appreciated and rewarded while they are still alive, suggesting somewhat more openness to and awareness of quality and less inclination to dismiss those without a long-cultivated name that was so common in the past.
Dear Peter, You are right. Society is an abstract entity and neither thinks nor speaks. However, when we say that a country's society speaks Chinese, we know what we are referring to.
Irrationality has always existed. In many ways, it has greater weight than it does today. For example, centuries ago, when it rained, it was a divine wish. Today, we know it is a result of the laws of thermodynamics. So, how should we interpret my question?
An example may help us. Suppose a father doesn't want his son to enter a locked room. He can do it in two ways.
1) If you enter that room, you will be grounded for three months without going out with your friends.
2) There is an evil being locked in that room that will blind you if you enter.
Option 1) is rational, but it makes the son feel unfree. Option 2) is irrational and pretends to be protective rather than oppressive.
Today, social powers use protective irrationality. It has also been done before, but without today's powerful media.
Well, with art, politics, etc., something similar can be said.
Keep in mind that Cicero's speeches in the Roman Senate 2,000 years ago are still studied. Do you think the same will happen with those of any current leader?
- Badges
- Science method