10-16-2011, 08:48 PM
Ted King wrote:
Sometimes the philosophy major in me probably gets overly niggley about certain things - like what is rational. When you move beyond logic (which really is just bunch of rules about assessing when thinking is valid and sound) then values enter into the picture and then what becomes rational or irrational depends on what value judgments you make. IOW, what is considered rational becomes much more relative to your value system and less about objectively following rules of logic.
If the Democrats cannot overcome issues like the Senate filibuster to raise taxes enough to get sufficient funding for Medicare, then what is the reasonable thing for Democrats to do?
I really don't want to dive to deeply into this philosophical debate, but there's a compelling argument to be made that once you enter the realm of human activity (and leave that of abstracted mathematics), logic is thoroughly embedded in values, and its use without attachment to moral valuation is nonsensical. See the Frankfurt School (Marcuse, Horkheimer, etc.) and other critical theorists for details.
Well, one reasonable thing would be to stop demonizing the opposition and positioning Republicans as essentially and permanently antithetical to truth, justice, and the American way. To remain committed, in the face of Realpolitik threats, to painful and risky compromises that carry political costs. To acknowledge that personal reelection and individual political careers are sometimes the cost of good political action.
But those rest on a 'rationality' that puts the good of the people above the good of the politician, or the party. So is it really rational at all?