Logic and rationality are like three-edged blades, and two of those edges wound the user more than the third wounds the enemy or benefits the user.
The so-called rational analytical approach embodies a fundamental flaw, a flaw which has consistently and historically either been ignored by both rationalists and scholars, or minimized. This flaw is the assumption that matters, feelings, or occurrences that cannot be described rationally or quantified objectively are of such little significance that they will not affect the outcome of the analysis. Further, such "non-rational" feelings or occurrences are all too often termed "irrational" and thus dismissed as beneath consideration.
In attempting to evaluate all too many human situations, in practical terms, there is indeed a difficulty. How does one quantify love or hatred? Exaltation or depression? Patriotism or beauty? How can one present any of these "objectively"? And how does one weigh that impact on human conduct? Upon economic or political behavior?
The problem is merely made worse by the rationalists who dismiss those who cannot present their case or argument objectively or rationally. Failure to present a case in rational terms does not mean the case does not exist! It only means that either the presenter cannot provide a logical format, or that the case is not susceptible to logical presentation. By insisting upon an objectively rational case, the rationalists impose what can best be described as "the tyranny of logic."
Solicitors and attorneys of law have historically been the leading tyrants of logic, but there are many, many others waiting in the wings for their turn. We have seen through the ages how totally unjust, unmerciful, and irrational laws and judicial decisions have been reached through pure logic and rationality. Moreover, the tyrants of logic question the value of the so-called irrational. Of what use is great art? Beautiful music? Inspiring architecture?
Or the differing opinions of others?
In point of fact, any decision-indeed, any organization, group, or culture-which does not incorporate emotion, passion, and other so-called "irrational factors" will, in the long run, fail. Why? Because the absolute reliance on quantified facts and pure logic reduces the intelligence of the decisions of that group or organization or culture. The evidence of history demonstrates that few strong groups or societies have existed transgenerationally without an internal culture that embodies irrational elements such as love, beauty, art, music, or differing opinions.
Yet, from the distant past to the far future, supposedly intelligent men and women have striven to ensure that the decisions that they make are grounded in absolutely quantified or quantifiable facts and pure rational logic.
Can you not understand the importance of irrationality?