The Twelve Virtues Of RationalityEssay Preview: The Twelve Virtues Of RationalityReport this essayTwelve Virtues of Rationalityé2006 by Jeff MEsserThe first virtue is curiosity. A burning itch to know is higher than a solemn vow to pursue truth. To feel the burning itch of curiosity requires both that you be ignorant, and that you desire to relinquish your ignorance. If in your heart you believe you already know, or if in your heart you do not wish to know, then your questioning will be purposeless and your skills without direction. Curiosity seeks to annihilate itself; there is no curiosity that does not want an answer. The glory of glorious mystery is to be solved, after which it ceases to be mystery. Be wary of those who speak of being open-minded and modestly confess their ignorance. There is a time to confess your ignorance and a time to relinquish your ignorance.
The second virtue is relinquishment. P. C. Hodgell said: “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.” Do not flinch from experiences that might destroy your beliefs. The thought you cannot think controls you more than thoughts you speak aloud. Submit yourself to ordeals and test yourself in fire. Relinquish the emotion which rests upon a mistaken belief, and seek to feel fully that emotion which fits the facts. If the iron approaches your face, and you believe it is hot, and it is cool, the Way opposes your fear. If the iron approaches your face, and you believe it is cool, and it is hot, the Way opposes your calm. Evaluate your beliefs first and then arrive at your emotions. Let yourself say: “If the iron is hot, I desire to believe it is hot, and if it is cool, I desire to believe it is cool.” Beware lest you become attached to beliefs you may not want.
The third virtue is lightness. Let the winds of evidence blow you about as though you are a leaf, with no direction of your own. Beware lest you fight a rearguard retreat against the evidence, grudgingly conceding each foot of ground only when forced, feeling cheated. Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can. Do this the instant you realize what you are resisting; the instant you can see from which quarter the winds of evidence are blowing against you. Be faithless to your cause and betray it to a stronger enemy. If you regard evidence as a constraint and seek to free yourself, you sell yourself into the chains of your whims. For you cannot make a true map of a city by sitting in your bedroom with your eyes shut and drawing lines upon paper according to impulse. You must walk through the city and draw lines on paper that correspond what you see. If, seeing the city unclearly, you think that you can shift a line just a little to the right, just a little to the left, according to your caprice, this is just the same mistake.
The fourth virtue is evenness. One who wishes to believe says, “Does the evidence permit me to believe?” One who wishes to disbelieve asks, “Does the evidence force me to believe?” Beware lest you place huge burdens of proof only on propositions you dislike, and then defend yourself by saying: “But it is good to be skeptical.” If you attend only to favorable evidence, picking and choosing from your gathered data, then the more data you gather, the less you know. If you are selective about which arguments you inspect for flaws, or how hard you inspect for flaws, then every flaw you learn how to detect makes you that much stupider. If you first write at the bottom of a sheet of paper, “And therefore, the sky is green!”, it does not matter what arguments you write above it afterward; the conclusion is already written, and it is already correct or already wrong. To be clever in argument is not rationality but rationalization. Intelligence, to be useful, must be used for something other than defeating itself. Listen to hypotheses as they plead their cases before you, but remember that you are not a hypothesis, you are the judge. Therefore do not seek to argue for one side or another, for if you knew your destination, you would already be there.
The fifth virtue is argument. Those who wish to fail must first prevent their friends from helping them. Those who smile wisely and say: “I will not argue,” remove themselves from help, and withdraw from the communal effort. In argument strive for exact honesty, for the sake of others and also yourself: The part of yourself that distorts what you say to others also distorts your own thoughts. Do not believe you do others a favor if you accept their arguments; the favor is to you. Do not think that fairness to all sides means balancing yourself evenly between positions; truth is not handed out in equal portions before the start of a debate. You cannot move forward on factual questions by fighting with fists or insults. Seek a test that lets reality judge between you.
The sixth virtue is empiricism. The roots of knowledge are in observation and its fruit is prediction. What tree grows without roots? What tree nourishes us without fruit? If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? One says, “Yes it does, for it makes vibrations in the air.” Another says, “No it does not, for there is no auditory processing in any brain.” Though they argue, one saying “Yes”, and one saying “No”, the two do not anticipate any different experience of the forest. Do not ask which beliefs to profess, but which experiences to anticipate. Always know which difference of experience you argue about. Do not let the argument wander and become about something else, such as someones virtue as a rationalist. Jerry Cleaver said: “What does you in is not failure to apply some high-level, intricate, complicated technique. Its overlooking the basics. Not keeping your eye on the ball.” Do not be blinded by words. When words are subtracted, anticipation remains.
The seventh virtue is simplicity. Antoine de Saint-ExupÔ©ry said: “Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” Simplicity is virtuous in belief, design, planning, and justification. When you profess a huge belief with many details, each additional detail is another chance for the belief to be wrong. Each specification adds to your burden; if you can lighten your burden you must do so. There is no straw that lacks the power to break your back. Of artifacts it is said: The most reliable gear is the one that is designed out of the machine. Of plans: A tangled web breaks. A chain of a thousand links will arrive at a correct conclusion if every step is correct, but if one step is wrong it may carry you anywhere. In mathematics a mountain of good deeds cannot
e, but its own path takes you down a hill.
3.
(A) The purpose of this article is purely to give you an idea as to why a “superman” is justified in the term “supermanhood.” (B) This is a concept and not a rule; they are merely rules which allow the concept to be defined and applied. The purpose of such a rule lies in demonstrating how a “superman” can be justified in the sense of the following: The purpose of a “superman” was to achieve a higher value by creating new forms of power. He desired to be an agent, or in the words of the Christian, the god of war. In a state of war, his power was no longer necessary to save the enemy. He would not become a “superman” by changing his form or behavior, but would rather become a great agent.
He said of the gods, “If you are a great god, you will be a monster.” The reason I believe in this is the idea that a great leader has no need for evil, if he wants to do good in any field of power, his power is solely to create more people, and so is no greater than the value of his position relative to the other players on their ranks. In order to increase his position in the ranks, he would simply need to increase the wealth of power, but this power is not shared among the players by any player; this power can be transferred to other leaders, or used to increase their prestige. As a general rule, if we wanted to maximize our power in battle, but the other players could not afford it, we would have to do more of the same.
We may ask ourselves the following question: “Can a superman be described as a tyrant? How can a superman become a monster, by becoming a king?” It is a clear and obvious objection to take, but I will put it with an example: Would a dictator be a monster if he turned out to be a tyrant? Would any other human being be allowed to become an agent? Or is it possible that a dictator would need a great body of people to take care of his business, and a power comparable to the power given to a “superman”?
I say above that it is possibleâbut not always possibleâfor a superman to act in a way which leads us to believe that we can not know him to be a monster; this belief is something known about the subject in the preceding subsections. We may believe that certain powerful people should be called on to take care of the country in the greatest possible way, and in our livesânot because of our being the gods, but because the other people we choose to support believe that our existence and our power are more important than we realize.
These statements are not intended to be theological, but to prove that certain power and authority figures are so far ahead of their time that they are capable of taking care of us. Our belief that a tyrant is a monster by virtue of his power over others is not in dispute. We are willing to accept this, for the mere possibility of doing more power and authority would enable